skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query infringement returned 49 results.

1000 METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD.
[Syllabus]
797 GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S. A.
[Syllabus]
721 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
616 KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. V. LASTINGIMPRESSION I, INC.
[Syllabus]
583 REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK
[Syllabus]
546 ELI LILLY & CO. V. MEDTRONIC, INC., 496 U.S. 661 (1990)
[Syllabus]
450 MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T CORP.
[Syllabus]
450 FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
[Syllabus]
450 MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD.
[Syllabus]
450 QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. LANZA RESEARCH INT., 523 U.S. 135 (1998)
[Syllabus]
450 MARKMAN ET AL. V. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., ET AL., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
[Syllabus]
388 WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 MV. CHICAGO
[Syllabus]
307 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
[Syllabus]
307 QUALITEX CO. V. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
[Syllabus]
307 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.
307
[Syllabus]
307 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.
307 ASGROW SEED CO. V. WINTERBOER, 513 U.S. 179 (1995).
[Syllabus]
307 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.
307 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?"
307 MICROSOFT CORP. V. I4I LTD. PARTNERSHIP
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 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.
194
[Syllabus]
194 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.
194
[Syllabus]
194 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 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?
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 QUANTA COMPUTER, INC. V. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
[Syllabus]
194 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V.ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
[Syllabus]
194 RANDALL V. SORRELL
[Syllabus]
194 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."
194 PFAFF V. WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC.
[Syllabus]
194 BILSKI V. KAPPOS
[Syllabus]
194 KSR INTL CO. V. TELEFLEX INC.
[Syllabus]
194 ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]