Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is in the northwest corner of North America, bordered by Canada to the east, the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific Ocean. The U. S. territories are scattered about the Pacific Ocean, the geography, climate and wildlife of the country are extremely diverse. At 3.8 million square miles and with over 324 million people, the United States is the worlds third- or fourth-largest country by area, third-largest by land area. It is one of the worlds most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, paleo-Indians migrated from Asia to the North American mainland at least 15,000 years ago. European colonization began in the 16th century, the United States emerged from 13 British colonies along the East Coast. Numerous disputes between Great Britain and the following the Seven Years War led to the American Revolution. On July 4,1776, during the course of the American Revolutionary War, the war ended in 1783 with recognition of the independence of the United States by Great Britain, representing the first successful war of independence against a European power. The current constitution was adopted in 1788, after the Articles of Confederation, the first ten amendments, collectively named the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791 and designed to guarantee many fundamental civil liberties. During the second half of the 19th century, the American Civil War led to the end of slavery in the country. By the end of century, the United States extended into the Pacific Ocean. The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the status as a global military power. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the sole superpower. The U. S. is a member of the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organization of American States. The United States is a developed country, with the worlds largest economy by nominal GDP. It ranks highly in several measures of performance, including average wage, human development, per capita GDP. While the U. S. economy is considered post-industrial, characterized by the dominance of services and knowledge economy, the United States is a prominent political and cultural force internationally, and a leader in scientific research and technological innovations. In 1507, the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere America after the Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci
Case law is the set of existing rulings which made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. In other countries, such as most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for example, patent office case law. Trials and hearings which are not selected as courts of first impression do not have rulings that become law, therefore. The legal systems of the Nordic countries are included among the civil law systems, but as a separate branch. In Sweden, for instance, case law plays a more important role than in some of the Continental civil law systems. The two highest courts, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, have the right to set precedent which is in practice binding on all future application of the law. Courts of appeal, both courts and administrative courts may also issue decisions that act as guides for the application of the law. In the common law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents which record how, normally, the burden rests with litigants to appeal rulings to the higher courts. If a judge acts against precedent and the case is not appealed, the decision will stand. A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if it feels that it is unjust and this may happen several times as the case works its way through successive appeals. High Trees House Ltd K. B.130, the different roles of case law in civil and common law traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short, some pluralist systems, such as Scots law in Scotland and so-called civil law jurisdictions in Quebec and Louisiana, do not precisely fit into the dual common-civil law system classifications. Such systems may have heavily influenced by the Anglo-American common law tradition, however. Because of their position between the two systems of law, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as mixed systems of law. Law professors in common law traditions play a smaller role in developing case law than professors in civil law traditions. Historically, common law courts relied little on legal scholarship, thus, at the turn of the twentieth century, thus common law systems are adopting one of the approaches long common in civil law jurisdictions. Judges may refer to types of persuasive authority to reach a decision in a case. Widely cited non-binding sources include legal encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum and Halsburys Laws of England, some bodies are given statutory powers to issue Guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the Highway Code
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a technological problem and is a product or a process. Patents are a form of intellectual property, the procedure for granting patents, requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims that define the invention. A patent may include many claims, each of which defines a specific property right and these claims must meet relevant patentability requirements, such as novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness. Nevertheless, there are variations on what is patentable subject matter from country to country, the word patent originates from the Latin patere, which means to lay open. More directly, it is a version of the term letters patent. Similar grants included land patents, which were land grants by early state governments in the USA, and printing patents, a precursor of modern copyright. In modern usage, the term patent usually refers to the granted to anyone who invents any new, useful. The additional qualification utility patent is used to distinguish the primary meaning from these other types of patents. Particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents, the period of protection was 10 years. These were mostly in the field of glass making, as Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes. This led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries, by the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually abuse the granting of letters patent for monopolies. After public outcry, King James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies, the Statute became the foundation for later developments in patent law in England and elsewhere. Important developments in patent law emerged during the 18th century through a process of judicial interpretation of the law. During the reign of Queen Anne, patent applications were required to supply a complete specification of the principles of operation of the invention for public access. Influenced by the philosophy of John Locke, the granting of patents began to be viewed as a form of property right. The English legal system became the foundation for patent law in countries with a common law heritage, including the United States, New Zealand, in the Thirteen Colonies, inventors could obtain patents through petition to a given colonys legislature
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International,573 U. S. __,134 S. Ct.2347, was a 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court about patentable subject matter. Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case was considered as a decision on software patents or patents on software for business methods. Alice alleged that CLS Bank International and CLS Services Ltd. began to use technology in 2002. Alice countersued CLS Bank for infringement of the patents and it declared each of Alices patents invalid because the claims concerned abstract ideas, which are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U. S. C. In so holding, the court relied on Bilski v. Alice appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A panel of the court decided by 2-1 in July 2012 to reverse the lower courts decision. But the members of the Federal Circuit vacated that decision and set the case for reargument en banc, a very fractured panel of ten judges of the Federal Circuit issued seven different opinions, with no single opinion supported by a majority on all points. Seven of the ten judges upheld the courts decision that Alices method claims and computer-readable-medium claims were not patent-eligible. Five of the ten judges upheld the courts decision that Alices computer-systems claims were not patent eligible. The panel as a whole did not agree on a standard to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent-ineligible abstract idea. In the Supreme Courts opinion in the case, the analysis was generally similar, the Supreme Court adopted a similar principle in its opinion. Chief Judge Rader and Circuit Judges Linn, Moore, and OMalley filed an opinion concurring in part and their patent-eligibility analysis focused on whether the claim, as a whole, was limited to an application of an abstract idea, or was merely a recitation of the abstract idea. They would have held Alices system claims patent eligible because they were limited to a computer-implemented application, referencing Einstein, he stated that even gravity is not a natural law. Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, calling for the Federal Circuit to clarify the interpretation of §101 and she would have held all of Alices claims patent eligible. Judges Linn and OMalley dissented, arguing that all claims were patent eligible, and the USPTO itself for the United States. Nearly all such briefs argued that the patents should be invalidated and they disagreed, however, as to the proper reasoning. Microsoft, Adobe and Hewlett-Packard argued it was nothing more than a business method. Free Software Foundation and others argued that no software should be patented unless it passes machine-or-transformation test, IBM disagreed with the abstract ideas reasoning and argued that the patent should instead be struck down for being too obvious
Altvater v. Freeman
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 319 MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.549 U. S.118 Maines, Ruanne Neighbour. Declaratory Judgments, Patent Litigation, Justiciable Controversy, california Law Review, Vol.37, No.3
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.241 U. S.257, was a United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff American Well Works Co. manufactured, sold, and held the patent to a type of pump. Layne & Bowler had also filed lawsuits against others who used plaintiffs pump, American Well Works filed suit in the Arkansas state court, claiming actual damages of $50,000 as well as punitive damages. Layne & Bowler removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on the grounds that the courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters of patent law. The district court dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court, did the district court properly dismiss the matter, i. e. was federal question jurisdiction present here. In a brief opinion, Justice Holmes wrote that claim was based upon the allegedly defamatory actions and statements of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that defendants conduct had damaged its business, and was not bringing suit to prove who had title to the patent. Whether or not defendants statements about the patent were true was simply a piece of evidence to be examine by the trial court. Thus, under the rule stated by this case, whether a suit arises under state or federal law determines whether or not federal question jurisdiction exists. It is therefore consistent with the well-pleaded complaint rule set forth in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley,211 U. S.149, just eight years earlier. Justice McKenna dissented without opinion, on the grounds that he felt the case involved a direct and substantial controversy under the patent laws
Apple Inc. litigation
The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests, from the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public. Steve Jobs alone was an inventor on over 300 design. Between January 2008 and May 2010, Apple Inc. filed more than 350 cases with the U. S, the case In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class action in 2005 claiming Apple violated the U. S. In October 2007, Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California, C 07-05662 RMW, adding complaints related to ringtones, and Kliegerman v. Apple, Inc. C 08-948, bringing in allegations under the federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, the combined case title was changed to In Re Apple & AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation. The court appointed lead counsel from the plaintiffs lawyers. The new case is essentially the same but is filed only against Apple, in late 2013, the various parts of the case were dismissed by the district court. The parts relating to SIM locking were rejected because AT&T was not a party, in 2008, Apple agreed to cut the price UK consumers pay to download music for their iPods after a formal complaint to the European Commission from the UK consumer group Which. Demonstrated higher prices in UK for the same songs sold elsewhere in the European Union. Apple clearly understood that its participation in this scheme would result in higher prices to consumers, in such an agency-model, publishers set prices rather than sellers. Fifteen states and Puerto Rico also filed a federal case in Austin, Texas, against Apple, Penguin, Simon & Schuster. As of July 2012, the case was still in the stage of litigation. On July 10,2013, District Court Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan found Apple Inc, in 2014, Apple settled out of court both an antitrust lawsuit and a related class-action suit regarding cold calling employees of other companies. An appeal followed the California courts approval of the settlement but the court upheld the settlement in December 2005. Apple agreed to pay all costs of the litigation, including payments to the class members and the plaintiffs attorney fees. In 2006 Apple Canada, Inc. also settled several similar Canadian class action suits alleging misrepresentations by Apple regarding iPod battery life
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries, by October, by July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U. S. Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On January 4,2007,4 days before the iPhone was introduced to the world and these were followed up in June of that year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screen shots of various iPhone graphical user interfaces. It is from these filings along with Apples utility patents, registered trademarks and trade dress rights, Apples evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. C. In Seoul, Samsung filed its lawsuit in April 2011 in the Central District Court citing five patent infringements. The court ruled that Samsung violated one of Apple’s utility patents, over the so-called bounce-back effect in iOS, Apple’s claims that Samsung copied the designs of the iPhone and iPad were deemed invalid. The court also ruled there was no possibility that consumers would confuse the smartphones of the two brands, and that Samsungs smartphone icons did not infringe upon Apples patents. Samsungs complaint in Japans Tokyo District Court cited two infringements, Apple has filed other patent suits in Japan against Samsung, most notably one for the bounce-back feature. Samsung has also sued Apple, claiming the iPhone and iPad infringe on Samsung patents, the three-judge panel in Japan also awarded legal costs to be reimbursed to Samsung. Presiding Judge Tamotsu Shoji said, The defendants products do not seem like they used the technology as the plaintiffs products so we turn down the complaints made by. An unnamed spokesperson for Samsung said, continue to offer innovative products to consumers. After Samsungs allegations of evidence tampering were heard, the court rescinded the EU-wide injunction and granted Apple a lesser injunction that only applied to the German market. Samsung also pulled the Galaxy Tab 7.7 from Berlins IFA electronics fair due to the ruling preventing marketing of the device, according to an estimate by Strategy Analytics, the impact on Samsung, in Germany, could have cost up to half a million unit sales. On September 9,2011, the German court ruled in favor of Apple, the court found that Samsung had infringed Apples patents. Presiding judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said there was an impression of similarity. In March 2012, the Mannheim state court dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases involving ownership of the slide-to-unlock feature used on their respective smartphones. The New York Times reported the German courts were at the center of patent fights among technology company rivals, on September 21, Mannheim Regional Court ruled in favour of Samsung in that it did not violate Apple’s patented features in regards to touch-screen technology
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.172 F. and decided that AT&T Corp. had failed to claim statutory subject matter with U. S. Patent No.5,333,184 under 35 U. S. C, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. This company is a subsidiary of AT&T Inc. and its subsidiary AT&T Communications still provides long distance service across the United States, Excel Communications was founded in 1988 by Dallas entrepreneur Kenny Troutt as a long distance reseller in the US telecom sector at the birth of telecom deregulation. It started its business by selling franchises through the model of network marketing or multi-level marketing. In 1992, the 184 patent was filed and in 1994, on March 27,1998, the District Court of Delaware concluded that the invention was not patentable subject matter because the claims implicitly recite a mathematical algorithm. The trial court, on summary judgment, held all of the claims at issue invalid for failure to qualify as statutory subject matter. On April 14,1999, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the subject matter was properly within the statutory scope of 35 U. S. C. §101, and reversed the courts judgment of invalidity on this ground. This data is called Primary interexchange carrier indicator, if the caller belongs to the carriers family the value of the PIC is 1. If the call recipient also belongs to the AT&T family, its PIC is 1, in the billing process, the logical product of the two PICs is taken—this process is also known as ANDing. Since the time of George Boole it has well known that if p =1 and q =1, then their logical product p q =1. Under this patent, when the product of the PICs is 1, the call is billed at a discounted rate, if the product is 0. Therefore, if and only if the caller and called person belong to the carriers family, in a direct-dialed long distance call, a call-related data and message record, named automatic message account, was generated. It includes further information, such as the originating and terminating telephone numbers, in their analysis, the Federal Court first refers to the definition of patentable invention in the language of 35 U. S. C. §101, and found that AT&Ts business method fell in the process category and the patent claims fell within the judicially created mathematical algorithm exception to statutory subject matter. Process is defined in 35 U. S. C. §100 as, a process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. However, the courts consider the scope of 35 U. S. C. §101 to be the same regardless of the form – machine or process - in which a claim is drafted. In response, the Court explained that physical transformation can be considered as long as it results in a useful, concrete, the court relied on the Supreme Courts opinion in Diamond v
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell
Bauer & Cie. v. ODonnell,229 U. S. A divided Court held that it was not, Bauer & Cie, a German company, was the assignee of U. S. 601,995, covering Sanatogen, a drug product, advertised as the King of Tonics. Bauer sold the product in the United States through its exclusive sales agent. Sanatogen was sold with this notice on each bag, Notice to the Retailer and this size package of Sanatogen is licensed by us for sale and use at a price not less than one dollar. Any sale in violation of this condition, or use when so sold,601,995, under which Sanatogen is manufactured, and all persons so selling or using packages or contents will be liable to injunction and damages. A purchase is an acceptance of this condition, all rights revert to the undersigned in the event of violation. ODonnell, a retail druggist in Washington, DC, purchased Sanatogen at wholesale and he persisted in doing this and was cut off, but he managed to continue to purchase the product from jobbers in DC and avers that he will continue such sales. This led to the present patent infringement suit, justice William R. Day delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices White, Hughes, Lamar, Pitney. Justices McKenna, Holmes, Lurton, and Van Devanter dissented without opinion, the patentee argued that the purpose of the restrictive notice was to prevent ruinous competition by the cutting of prices in sales of the patented article. Day responded, however, that absent a patent the Court had held resale price fixing unlawful in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. And Congress could, if it had wanted to, have conferred on patentees the right to such restrictions. He then asked, Has it done so, the question has not been determined in any previous case in this Court, so far as we are aware. It was dealt with under the statute, however, in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus. The Court recognized that there are differences between the copyright statute and the patent statute, and the purpose to decide the question now before us was expressly disclaimed in Bobbs–Merrill. Nonetheless, it is apparent that, in the involved in the present inquiry. Both statutes grant a right to vend. The sale of an article is not essentially different from the sale of a book
Bilski v. Kappos
The Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski, the case below. However, it rejected the machine-or-transformation test as a sole test of patentability based on an interpretation of the language of §101. The Court rejected the Federal Circuits statutory interpretation regarding the word process, section 100 defines process as a process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material. The Court looked to Gottschalk v. Benson and Parker v. Flook,35 U. S. C. §273 also provides as a defense to patent infringement prior use of a method of conducting or doing business. By acknowledging the defense, the statute also acknowledged the possibility of business method patents, regarding Bilskis claimed subject matter, the Court found that his method of optimizing a fixed bill system for energy markets was an unpatentable abstract idea. The holding of the Court was unanimous, but there were two concurring opinions, and no single opinion commanded a majority of the Court as to all parts. Justice Stevens concurrence, joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, Stevens rejected the majoritys reliance on the mention of the word method in 35 U. S. C. He would categorically exclude business methods from patentability, as they have not traditionally been patentable in the U. S. despite significant innovations in business methods and it was the final opinion in Stevens 35-year career on the Supreme Court. His retirement became effective the next day, Justice Breyers concurrence began by agreeing with Justice Stevens that a general method of engaging in business transactions is not a patentable process. While the machine-or-transformation test has always been a useful and important clue, although the machine-or-transformation test is not the only test for patentability, this by no means indicates that anything which produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result, is patentable. He outcome from the decision might be best stated as business as usual, the two claims related to medical diagnostics, and the claims in Prometheus were found patentable under the machine-or-transformation test while the claims in Classen were not. In December 2010, the Federal Circuit applied the broad eligibility of Bilski in Research Corp, technologies v. Microsoft Corp. which upheld the patent eligibility of a process for digital image halftoning. However, we are pleased that the Court maintained the patentability of business methods. In re Bilski Stanford v. Roche CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, list of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 561 Lemley, Mark A. Risch, Michael, Sichelman, Ted M. Wagner, R. Polk. Text of the Slip Opinion from supremecourt. gov Transcript of oral arguments of Bilski v. Kappos Links to Briefs, incl. amici, petition and merits in Bilski v. Kappos. Application of Bilski in Research Corp