ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Supreme Court of the United States"

(Some important cases)
m (Reverted edits by 204.45.33.150 (talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
The '''US Supreme Court''' is the highest court in the [[USA]].
 
The '''US Supreme Court''' is the highest court in the [[USA]].
  
http://www.barcampistanbul.com/ cymbalta =-P http://www.ajayrochester.com/ where to buy levitra 34722 http://www.worldtaichiday-akl.org/ seroquel best buy 71892
+
==Some important cases==
 +
 
 +
Cases treating the most important topic, [[patentable subject matter]]:
 +
 
 +
* [[Bilski v. Kappos]] 2009 (as of June 26th, 2010, opinion still pending)
 +
* [[Diamond v. Diehr]], 1981
 +
* [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)]]
 +
* [[Gottschalk v. Benson]], 1972
 +
 
 +
Other cases that (might) have affected software patents:
 +
 
 +
* [[Quanta v. LGE (2008, USA)]]
 +
* [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]
 +
* [[Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA)]]
 +
* [[EBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
  
 
==The judges==
 
==The judges==

Revision as of 07:55, 8 February 2011

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the USA.

Some important cases

Cases treating the most important topic, patentable subject matter:

Other cases that (might) have affected software patents:

The judges

The current judges are (as of August 2010):

Noteworthy ex-judges

Suitability for deciding policy questions

Former Chief Judge of the CAFC, Paul Redmond Michel had this to say about the Supreme Court's suitability for interpreting article 101 of the US Code which defines patentable subject matter:[1]

Take Bilski on 101. Nine Supreme Court justices, eight of them had never seen a 101 issue before in their entire time on the Supreme Court. Only Justice Stevens had ever seen a 101 issue before. Well, that shows the problem right there. The Federal Circuit has every issue under the sun come up again and again and again, month after month, year after year. So it has intense exposure to all these different issues and the interplay among all these different sections, and the Supreme Court doesn’t. And, frankly, I think the Supreme Court has often been misled by lawyers. For example, in eBay the Supreme Court was told that we had an “automatic” injunction rule, which was never the case. It was just absolutely false. In the KSR they were told that we had a “rigid” rule that didn’t allow any judgment, which was never the case. So in addition to their inexperience and unfamiliarity with patent law, they’re subject to being manipulated and misinformed by overstated claims by some advocates and they aren’t maybe as well equipped as Federal Circuit judges might be to know that the claim is baloney

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

  • http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/24/chief-judge-michel-interview-sequel-part-2/