Source: http://patenting-art.com/decision/decision.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:17:56+00:00

Document:
Today's rules for patenting and copyrighting, in many cases, are based on judicial decisions that can date back 100 years or more. Judges and lawyers fill their writings with such references, often because it is meaningful to do so, occasionally to show off their research skills, and yes, sad to say, to scare off everyone else. But if you are willing to read the cases, you too can play this game.
I have gathered together the full text to lots of such decisions, most of which deal with the fundamental aspects of patent and copyright law. Cases are listed in multiple categories. Some decisions no longer have value as precedents, being superseded by later decisions. Other decisions should have no value as precedent. Some such cases are annotated below.
ADVENTUROUS??? Disagree with aspects of patent and copyright statues and the case law below??? Why not file a constitutionality lawsuit??? Well, click here for the do-it-yourself guide to filing constitutionality lawsuits .
These cases were chosen because they interest me. I have added a few-line description of what interests me about the decision. Each case has a "holding", such as one court affirming or reversing the decision of a lower court, or the lower court accepting or rejecting the plaintiff's charges. How the court reached that decision, their "proof" based on case law and the facts, is refered to as "dictum". Lawyers use such dicta as templates for their own arguments (and so can you), except when they want to insult the reasoning (which they do by referring to it as "mere dictum").
Others statements are just comments, whose citing is not encouraged. Except where they are, Alice. For example, Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen, in a dissent, argued that a certain test applied to abortions. At a later Congressional hearing on her nomination to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Owen admitted the test was based on the minority comments of four Supreme Court judges in an earlier case - a legal no no. (New York Times, 28 March 2003, A11). If the judges and lawyers are doing this, so can you.
Experimental use of a patented invention for scientific ["philosophical"] research purposes is exempt from patent infringement - a fair use.
Question: "In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? The result of their labours may be equally beneficial to society, and in their respective spheres they may be alike distinguished for mental vigour." If there isn't a difference, Answer: "It would seem therefore that the existence of a principle [term of protection] which operates so unequally, may well be doubted." Dissent: The "and" of "authors and inventors" is distributive, the subjects distinct in the mind of Congress.
Novel architectural plans could be patentable or copyrightable.
Process is as patentable as machinery, independent of form of instruments used, if new and useful.
Two devices doing the same work in the same way with the same results, are the same, even if they differ in name, form or shape.
Methods (of bookkeeping) not copyrightable, but potentially patentable. Artistic methods potentially patentable.
An art - a process which is useful, is as patentable as a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Descriptions of means in the patent is only necessary to show that the process can be used.
Method of soliciting insurance neither patentable nor copyrightable as idea.
Business method for using an insurance plan form is not novel. Methods of transacting common business do not seem to be patentable as an art.
Obvious business shipping method is not patentable.
Business method without implementation means is not a patentable art.
Patent on motion picture projector cannot be used to restrict which motion pictures are shown on projector.
The inventor or a new and useful product or article of manufacture may have a patent covering it and giving a monopoly upon it, regardless of great variations in the method of making.
An idea reduced to writing (printed matter), is not patentable.
Aesthetic or emotional special effects are not patentable.
"Machine" is device or combination of devices by means of which energy can be utilized for useful operation to be performed. Patents for machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter differ fundamentally in nature from "process" patents. Process may be protected and patented only as a process.
Non-novel sale of stocks and commodities business method not patentable.
A method of using materials to perform a function is patentable irrespective of the particular form of the mechanism used for the method's operation.
Lottery business method is a system not copyrightable.
A system of transacting business, or an abstract idea or theory, apart from means of effectuating it, is not patentable.
Printed/graphical instructions for playing a piano not patentable.
Music on phonographic record is analogous to printed matter and not patentable.
There is no overlap between "Inventors'" "Discoveries" (patents) "Authors'" "Writings" (copyrights). A patented invention should not be able to extend its term of protection by use of copyrights.
Patentable slight alteration must be more than mechanical/professional skill.
Only useful application of law of nature or scientific fact is a patentable method.
Method of testing consumer beverage preferences not patentable.
Combining old elements, or an old and new element, that perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that previously performed or produced by them, is not a patentable invention. An invention must advance science with its' quality and distinctiveness.
Pure mental steps are not patentable. Process steps must be performed on physical objects. Process based on mathematical procedure not patentable.
Obvious ideas are not patentable.
Inventions in an art must be consistent with rules and standards of the art.
Utilitarian products, even if artistic, are patentable not copyrightable.
An algorithm claimed as a pure mental step is not patentable.
A mental step can't be patented. Automating a manual activity is not patentable.
Novel and non-obvious computer programs are patentable. A computer program turns a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer.
A sheet of paper marked with (music) symbols to form a message is printed matter that is not patentable.
(Non-novel) method of doing business is not patentable.
A process is patentable even if only one apparatus is disclosed to implement the process.
A patentable process is not limited to operations on physical substances or the means used in performing it.
"Mental" is vague. Process, to be patentable, can have mental steps not applied to physical objects.
Mental steps in a patent are patentable. Computer software as a process is a technological/useful art.
Algorithm with a practical application is patentable. Process claim without reference to particular machines must show transformation and reduction of an object to a different state or thing.
Method where final step is a solution to a mathematical equation is not patentable.
Something can be protected both with a design patent and a copyright. No election of protection is necessary.
Financial record-keeping software is patentable.
A group or "kit" of interrelated parts is a "manufacture" as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
Operating system algorithm not mathematical and therefore patentable.
An algorithm with a specific application is a technologically useful art that is patentable. Business method for operating a manufacturing plant is patentable.
Solution of mathematical equations have to be used to achieve a result to be patentable.
Some novel and useful computer programs are not patentable. Process is not unpatentable because it contains law of nature or mathematical algorithm. Unknown algorithms can be prior art. Process has to be new and useful, independent of any mathematical algorithms used.
Business method of preparing architectural specifications and project plans using software is patentable.
Computer business method for optimizing sales not patentable.
Conversion of English and mathematics into software is mere clerical function for a skilled programmer that does not have to be disclosed in patent application.
A subset or subgenus of scientifically related compounds or features are a proper Markush group.
Live, man-made micro-organism, held patentable under 35 USC 101. Manifestations of nature are not patentable. Anything else new "under the sun" is patentable.
Business method for cash management described with flow chart, but with no corresponding apparatus description, is patentable.
Mathematical algorithm applied to a specific process is patentable.
Transformations to data representing physical activity or objects are patentable processes. Dissent supports business method patents.
A data structure in memory is a physical entity and is patentable.
Processor with specific data or data structure in memory is definite and therefore patentable.
Patentable algorithms must be non-abstract - useful, concrete, tangible. Algorithms transform a general purpose computer into a specific machine.
Algorithm as method without apparatus is not patentable.
Economic methods that produce a useful, concrete and tangible result are patentable.
Algorithm does not have to physically transform matter to be patentable, but only has to produce useful, concrete and tangible result.
Functional data structures are technical and patentable.
Economic and business methods are not technical and not patentable. Decision doesn't define 'technical'.
A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. A feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.
Dictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises serve as reliable sources of information on the established meanings of the terms in the claims. A term in the claim encompasses multiple definitions consistent with the specification.
Symbols used in maps are not copyrightable.
Photographs are writings and therefore copyrightable.
Printed and engraved works are copyrightable. Pictorial illustrations and chromolithographic advertisements are copyrightable.
Motion picture, considered as a series of images, is copyrightable.
Motion picture, viewed as a series of pictures on film, is copyrightable. A picture or photograph, as expression of idea, is copyrightable "writing".
209 U.S. 1 White-Smith Music v. Apollo Company, February, 1908 Copyrighted works are not infringed by their binary representations because there is no perceived expression with the representations.
Motion picture, considered as a series of photographs, is copyrightable. Multiple scripts of the same story are equally copyrightable.
One cannot have a design patent and copyright for the same design.
81 F.2d 49 Sheldon v. MGM, January 1936 The broad outline/general pattern of a movie plot is not copyrightable. Unconscious plagiarism is not a defense to copyright infringement. Originality for infringement determination is limited to only those variants introduced into a plot that is in the prior art.
Method for life insurance policies is not copyrightable.
Any work with pronounced/substantial similarities to another work is mostly likely a copy, especially if one or more persons have a relationship to both works.
Comparing similarities of two works of art, analysis / dissection, is a issue of facts. DISSENT - Comparison should include overall look-and-feel.
Articles intended for practical use in cooperation with a machine are not copyrightable. To copyright such articles would in effect continue monopoly of a machines beyond the time authorized by the patent law. Cites White-Smith.
Design patent law is not stronger than, nor does it prevail over, copyright law. A copyright does not give any rights to functional use of work or art. Appropriateness of copyright registration is determined by character of registered work of art as registered and not by ability, intent or hope to use it as dress for utilitarian object.
Method for insurance policy is not copyrightable.
Methods of doing business not copyrightable.
An idea ("subject matter") with at best only a "limited", "mere handful", number of forms of expression, is not copyrightable, because someone could control the idea by copyrighting the limited number of forms.
States that thematic concepts are not protectable by copyright, but also considers the "total concept" and sequence of steps (a process) to be protectable (process also not be protectable by copyright).
Given the Bleistein and Mazur decisions, an artistic design for a lighting fixture is copyrightable.
Ninth Circuit renames the "idea/expression" dichotomy, now calling it the "extrinsic/intrinsic" dichotomy, with an extrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of ideas, and the intrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of expression. Introduces "total concept and feel" as a copyrightable aspect of the extrinsic aspects, without stating how this does not contradict 17 U.S.C 102b.
Copyright in historical works is narrowly limited to no more than the author's original expression of particular facts and theories already in the public domain.
Research results are not copyrightable.
In one of the very few cases dealing with conceptual art, court rules a work of conceptual art is copyrightable.
The First Amendment protects speech of uncopyrightable facts and ideas, but doesn't protect speech of copyrightable expression. (Dissent) Literary form is protected by copyright, not (historical) information.
Failed attempt by 3rd Circuit to extend software copyright protection to ideas - to the structure, sequence and organization of a computer program. Three years later, the Copyright Office rebukes the decision, and six years later the 2nd Circuit calls the decision flawed, outdated and inadequate.
Ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
Popular aspects of user interfaces (menu screens, menu bars, pull-down windows, color schemes) are not copyrightable.
Facts are not copyrightable for not being authored. Original compilations of facts are copyrightable where selection and arrangement of facts occurs. "Original" means independent creation, not novelty. One can copy facts from compilation if expressed differently. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Copyright is not a reward for "sweat of the brow" compilations.
User interface menu hierarchies are methods of operation, and not copyrightable. "Expressive choices" for menu names do not "magically" make uncopyrightable menu hierarchies copyrightable. Many ways of operating a computer program does not make any one way copyrightable.
Sports events are not "authored" and therefore not copyrightable, but recorded broadcasts of such events are copyrightable. Facts and statistics about sports events are not copyrightable.
A musical riff is an idea. Reducing riff chords to single notes for comparing two riffs is inadequate.
A work that is the combination of public domain elements, elements that can only be combined in a limited number of ways to express the idea of the work, is not copyrightable - the merger doctrine.
Derivative work copyrightable only if underlying work is copyrighted. Photograph of purely utilitarian object (bottle) with no artistic features is noncopyrightable derivative. A work is a useful article, and therefore denied copyright for its shape as such, if it has an intrinsic utilitarian function, even though it may have other functions which are not utilitarian. If idea of copyrighted work can be expressed in only one way, "merger doctrine" prevents copyright enforcement.
A photograph has to be "virtually identical" to infringe another photograph if either there are a judge-determined limited number of ways to shoot the photograph (merger) or if there are many similar photographs (scenes a fair).
Copyright is very narrow for artworks of natural objects. An original combination of numerous uncopyrightable elements may be copyrightable.
Appearance, which is the essential consideration in designs, may result from pecularity of configuration, or of ornament alone, or of both conjointly.
A color can be registered as a trademark. So too can a sound or scent be registered.
Trade dress law does not protect an idea, a concept, or a generalized type of appearance.
Facts and statistics about sports events are not copyrightable. Sports events are not "authored" and therefore not copyrightable, but recorded broadcasts of such events are copyrightable.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
To be scientific, a theory has to be tested, has to be subject to peer review and publication, have a known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and has to attract widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide the standard for what is scientific testimony.
Processor with specific data or data structure in memory is definite and therfore patentable.
Business plan for selling music, if novel and concrete, is a protectable property.
Author has exclusive right to control the use of his literary productions.
The structure of a play is its characters and sequences of incidents.
Screenplay "High Stakes" not infringed by "Trading Places" motion picture.
86 F.2d 958 Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber et al.
169 F. 61 Harper & Brothers, et al. v. Kalem Co., et al.
122 F. 467 Hocke et al. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
160 F. 467 Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine Co.
180 F.2d 26 Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents.
225 F.3d 1068 Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al.
323 F.3d 763 Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al.
197 F.2d 336 Lundberg et al.
193 F.2d 58 Martin v. Wyeth, Inc., et al.
55 F.2d 854 Nestle-Le Mur v. Eugene Ltd.
45 F.2d 119 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. et al.
195 F.2d 971 Packwood v. Briggs & Straton Corp. et al.
205 F.2d 633 Rosenthal et al. v. Stein et al.
103 F. Supp. 227 Stein et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
12 USPQ.2D 1991 Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corp.
F. Supp.2d 983 ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.