Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query infringement returned 49 results.

	METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S. A. [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. V. LASTINGIMPRESSION I, INC. [Syllabus]
	REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK [Syllabus]
	ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T CORP. [Syllabus]
	FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. [Syllabus]
	QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. LANZA RESEARCH INT., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MARKMAN ET AL. V. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., ET AL., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MV. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. [Syllabus]
	QUALITEX CO. V. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., 514 U.S. 159 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HOLMES GROUP, INC. V. VORNADO AIRCIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim.
	[Syllabus]
	FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYOKABUSHIKI CO. [Syllabus] Prosecution history estoppel may apply to any claim amendment made to satisfy the Patent Act's requirements, not just to amendments made to avoid the prior art, but estoppel need not bar suit against every equivalent to the amended claim element.
	ASGROW SEED CO. V. WINTERBOER, 513 U.S. 179 (1995). [Syllabus]
	TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. V. MARKETINGDISPLAYS, INC. [Syllabus] Because MDI's dual-spring design mechanism for keeping road signs upright is a functional feature for which there is no trade dress protection, MDI's claim for such protection is barred.
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC. [Syllabus] What must be shown to establish that a product's design is inherently distinctive for purposes of Lanham Act trade-dress protection?"
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. I4I LTD. PARTNERSHIP [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. [Syllabus] Utility patents may be issued for newly developed plant breeds under 35 U. S. C. §101; neither the Plant Variety Protection Act nor the Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits the scope of §101's coverage.
	[Syllabus]
	MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.
	[Syllabus]
	CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Syllabus] 1. Does Revised Code of Washington 26.10.160(3) and the former RCW26.09.240 granting third parties, including grandparents, the right to petition for visitation rights with a minor child if the visitation is ""in the best interests of the child"" impermissibly interfere with a parent's fundamental interest in the ""care custody and companionship of a child"" as defined by the liberty and privacy provisions of the United States Constitution? 2. Did the Supreme Court of Washington err in Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), in holding that RCW 26. 10. 160(3) and the former RCW 26.09.240 are unconstitutional based upon the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fundamental right to privacy inherent in the United States Constitution when it used the flawed premise that a parent's fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions is unassailable and that the state's parents patriae power to act in a child's welfare may not be invoked absent a finding of harm to the child or parental unfitness?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	QUANTA COMPUTER, INC. V. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V.ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC. [Syllabus] Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
	PFAFF V. WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC. [Syllabus]
	BILSKI V. KAPPOS [Syllabus]
	KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC. [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]