List of United States Supreme Court patent case law

This is an incomplete list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the area of patent law.

19th century

Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary19th century Tyler v. Tuel 10 U.S. 324 1810 Patent Act of 1793 Assignee of geographically-limited patent right could not bring action in their own name. Evans v. Jordan 13 U.S. 199 1815 Patent Act of 1800, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans Evans v. Eaton16 U.S. 454 1818 Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans Evans v. Eaton20 U.S. 356 March 20, 1822 Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans A patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art. Evans v. Hettich20 U.S. 453 1822 Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans Pennock v. Dialogue 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 1 1829 Commercial exploitation of invention for long period forfeits right to patent. Grant v. Raymond31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 2181832improved machine for making hatsChief Justice MarshallPatent Act of 1800Effect of a reissued patent having a corrected specificationHogg v. Emerson47 U.S. (6 How.) 4371848improved machine – steam engineJustice WoodburyPatent Act of 1836, Section 17 Gayler v. Wilder51 U.S. 477 1850 Novelty means knowledge or use accessible to the public. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood52 U.S. 248 1850 Introduced the concept of non-obviousness as a patentability requirement in U.S. patent law. Le Roy v. Tatham 55 U.S. 156 1852 O'Reilly v. Morse56 U.S. 62 1853 Patent-eligibility: patent-eligibility (Invalidating method claims for "abstract idea", where steps of method not tied to particular machine). Undue patent claim breadth: Patent holder can only hold a patent on the steps taken, not on every means to the result. Corning v. Burden 56 U.S. 252 1853 Winans v. Denmead56 U.S. 330 1853 Established doctrine of equivalents: Even if not literally within the claims, a device infringes if it arrives at the same result in the same way. Godfrey v. Eames 68 U.S. 317 1863 Continuing application. Burr v. Duryee 68 U.S. 531 1863 Seymour v. Osborne 78 U.S. 516 1870 Prior art must enable a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to make and use the invention.Coffin v. Ogden85 U.S. 1201873Patent Act of 1836Anticipating invention or discovery must be complete and capable of working to invalidate a patent for lack of novelty, but the prior knowledge or use does not need to be public. The words "by others" only require that the invention be known or used by someone other than the applicant. Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard 87 U.S. 498 1874 Cochrane v. Deener94 U.S. 780 1876 (March 19, 1877) Patentability. City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.97 U.S. 126 1878 "Prior use" does not include experimental use. Trade-Mark Cases100 U.S. 8218799–0 Constitutional basis for trademark regulationMajority: Miller (unanimous)The Copyright/Patent Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate trademarks. Tilghman v. Proctor 102 U.S. 707 1880 Sharp v. Dover Stamping Co. 103 U.S. 250 1880 Egbert v. Lippmann 104 U.S. 333 1881 Public use of an invention bars patent. Atlantic Works v. Brady 107 U.S. 192 1883 Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. 113 U.S. 59 1885 Rowell v. Lindsay 113 U.S. 97 1885 Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co. 113 U.S. 157 1885 Voss v. Fisher 113 U.S. 213 1885 White v. Dunbar 119 U.S. 47 1886 Andrews and others v. Hovey (The Driven-Well Cases)123 U.S. 2671887Improved method of constructing wellsPatent Act of 1839, Section 7 The Telephone Cases 126 U.S. 1 1888 McClain v. Ortmayer 141 U.S. 419 1891 Schillinger v. United States 155 U.S. 163 1894 Patent infringement claim against the United States cannot be asserted. Black Diamond Coal Mining Company v. Excelsior Coal Company 156 U.S. 611 1895 Consolidated Electric Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co 159 U.S. 465 1895 Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart 158 U.S. 68 1895 Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse 170 U.S. 537 1898

1900–1920

Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary1900–1920 Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co. 177 U.S. 485 1900 Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co. 185 U.S. 403 1902 Busch v. Jones 184 U.S. 598 1902 Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. 210 U.S. 405 1908 Established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent. Leeds and Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. 29 U.S. 495 & 213 U.S. 325 1909 Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford General Fireproofing Co. v. Expanded Metal Co. 214 U.S. 366 1909 Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. 220 U.S. 428 1911 Inventor not obliged to know scientific theory underlying invention; can be pure empiricist Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. 224 U.S. 1 1912 The Court found contributory infringement for the sale of the defendant's ink with patent owner's machine (inherency doctrine). Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co, v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co. 225 U.S. 604 1912 Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell 229 U.S. 1 1913 Patent right does not include right to dictate the price of the product. The Fair v. Kohler Die and Specialty Co. 228 U.S. 22 1913 Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co. & Dowagiac Mfg. Company v. Smith 235 U.S. 641 1915 Minerals Separation v. Hyde 242 U.S. 261 1916 Holding valid claims directed to critical proportions of oil to ore in a concentrating ore. American Well Works Co. v. Layne and Bowler Co. 241 U.S. 257 1916 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. 243 U.S. 502 1917 Holding unenforceable a restriction that a user of a patented film projector must use it to screen only such films as the patentee authorized; tie-in is patent misuse

1921–1959

Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary1921–1959 Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. 261 U.S. 45 1923 United States v. General Electric Co. 272 U.S. 476 1926 A patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product. American Fruit Growers v. Brogdex Co. 283 U.S. 1 1931 Carbice Corp. v. Patents Development Corp. 283 U.S. 27 1931 Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Dev. Co. 283 U.S. 420 1931 U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation 289 U.S. 178 1933 Smith v. Snow 294 U.S. 1 1935 Waxham v. Smith 294 U.S. 20 1935 Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Engineering Corp. 294 U.S. 42 1935 General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. 304 U.S. 175 1938 Upholding enforceability of field-of-use limitations in a patent license Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.305 U.S. 111 1938 Once a patent has expired, the benefits of the invention are to be enjoyed by the public and may not be extended by trademark. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corporation of America 306 U.S. 618 1939 Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. 314 U.S. 488 1942 Patent misuse. United States v. Univis Lens Co.316 U.S. 241 1942 Explaining the exhaustion doctrine and applying it to find an antitrust violation because Univis' ownership of patents did not exclude its restrictive practices from the antitrust laws. Altvater v. Freeman 319 U.S. 359 1943 Although a licensee had maintained payments of royalties, a claim of invalidity of the licensed patent still presented a justiciable case or controversy. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co. 322 U.S. 471 1944 Special Equipment Co. v. Coe 324 U.S. 370 1945 Sinclair & Carrol Co. v. Interchemical Corporation 325 U.S. 327 1945 Selection of a chemical from a catalog based on predetermined qualifications is obvious. Transparent-Wrap Mach. Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co. 329 U.S. 637 Feb. 3, 1947 Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. 333 U.S. 127 1948 A facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon of nature is not eligible for a patent. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. 340 U.S. 147 1950 Only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is a combination of old elements patentable. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 U.S. 605 1950 Introduced the doctrine of equivalents. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Eqpt. Co. 342 U.S. 180 1952 Besser Mfg. v. United States 343 U.S. 444 1952 Compulsory licensing remedy in patent antitrust case; joint agreement not to license (veto) Sanford v. Kepner 344 U.S. 13 1952 U.S. Gypsum v. National Gypsum 352 U.S. 457 1957 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/11 Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. 353 U.S. 222 1957

1960–1969

Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary1960–1969 Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (Aro I) 365 U.S. 336 Feb. 27, 1961 Redefined the doctrine of repair and reconstruction Schnell v. Eckrich & Sons 365 U.S. 260 1961 Glidden v. Zdanok 370 U.S. 530 1962 CPPA court White Motor v. U.S. 83 U.S. 253 1963 antitrust, tying Sperry v. Florida 373 U.S. 379 1963 patent practice U.S. v. Singer Mfg. Co. 374 U.S. 174 1963 Sherman Act Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther 377 U.S. 422 1964 Extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. 376 U.S. 225 1964 Companion to Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.. State unfair competition law. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. 376 U.S. 234 1964 Held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent laws was preempted by federal law. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (Aro II) 377 U.S. 476 1964 Brulotte v. Thys Co. 379 U.S. 29 1964 Royalties after expiration of patent non-enforceable Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. 382 U.S. 172 1965 antitrust Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner 382 U.S. 252 1965 prior art Graham v. John Deere Co. 383 U.S. 1 Feb. 21, 1966 Clarified the requirement of nonobviousness. United States v. Adams 383 U.S. 39 Feb. 21, 1965 Wet battery including a combination of known elements not obvious because the operating characteristics were unexpected and improved over then-existing wet batteries. Brenner v. Manson 383 U.S. 519 March 21, 1966 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (Zenith I) 395 U.S. 100 1969 Lear, Inc. v. Adkins 395 U.S. 653 1969 Overturned the doctrine of licensee estoppel. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. 396 U.S. 57 1969 Related to obviousness.

1970–1979