Source: http://patenting-art.com/decision/decision.htm
Timestamp: 2020-02-17 12:51:51
Document Index: 85789004

Matched Legal Cases: ['art.\n122', 'art.\n243', 'art.\n103', 'art.\n409', 'art.\n98', 'arty\n98']

Judicial Decisions Regarding
Patent and Copyright Theory
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 Some decisions no longer have value as precedents, being superseded by later decisions.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.
Idea/Expression Dichotomy; Merger; First Amendment
Philosophy/Semantics of Science/Technology
29 F. Cas. 1120 Whittemore v. Cutter, May 1813
Experimental use of a patented invention for scientific ["philosophical"] research purposes is exempt from patent infringement - a fair use.
33 U.S. 591 Wheaton v. Peters, January 1834
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.
74 U.S. 295 Jacobs v. Baker, December 1868
Novel architectural plans could be patentable or copyrightable.
94 U.S. 780 Cochrane v. Deener, March 1877
Process is as patentable as machinery, independent of form of instruments used, if new and useful.
97 U.S. 120 Machine Co. v. Murphy, October 1877
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.
101 U.S. 99 Baker v. Selden, October 1879
Methods (of bookkeeping) not copyrightable, but potentially patentable. Artistic methods potentially patentable.
126 U.S. 1, 533 The Telephone Cases (American Bell Telephone v. ....... March 1888
5 N.Y.S. 131 Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, March 1889
Method of soliciting insurance neither patentable nor copyrightable as idea.
53 F. 818 United States Credit System v. American Credit Indemnity, January 1893
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.
122 F. 467 Hocke et al. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., April 1903
Obvious business shipping method is not patentable.
160 F. 467 Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine Co., March 1908
Business method without implementation means is not a patentable art.
243 U.S. 871 Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Manufacturing, April 1917
Patent on motion picture projector cannot be used to restrict which motion pictures are shown on projector.
259 F 258 Dunn Wire-Cut Lug Brick v. Toronto Fire Clay, January 1919
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.
13 USPQ 214 Boggs v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents, June 1931
An idea reduced to writing (printed matter), is not patentable.
54 F.2d 195 Greenewalt v. Stanley Company of America, January 1932
Aesthetic or emotional special effects are not patentable.
55 F.2d 854 Nestle-Le Mur v. Eugene Ltd., February 1932
"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.
73 F.2d 982 In re Wait, December 1934
Non-novel sale of stocks and commodities business method not patentable.
294 U.S. 20 Waxman v. Smith, January 1935
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.
86 F.2d 958 Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber et al., December 1936
Lottery business method is a system not copyrightable.
127 F.2d 324 In re Patton, April 1942
A system of transacting business, or an abstract idea or theory, apart from means of effectuating it, is not patentable.
132 F.2d 140 In re Rice, December 1942
Printed/graphical instructions for playing a piano not patentable.
1943 J.P.O.S. 905 Ex parte S, August 1943
Music on phonographic record is analogous to printed matter and not patentable.
139 F.2d 98 Taylor Instruments v. Fawley-Brost, November 1943
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.
174 F.2d 938 In re Benner and Mcmullen, April 1949
Patentable slight alteration must be more than mechanical/professional skill.
179 F.2d 793 Davison Chemical v. Joliet Chemicals, March 1950
Only useful application of law of nature or scientific fact is a patentable method.
180 F.2d 26 Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents., January 1950
Method of testing consumer beverage preferences not patentable.
340 U.S. 147 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea v. Supermarket Equipment, December 1950
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.
186 F.2d 377 Application of Shao Wen Yuan, April 1951
Pure mental steps are not patentable. Process steps must be performed on physical objects. Process based on mathematical procedure not patentable.
193 F.2d 58 Martin v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., December 1951
Obvious ideas are not patentable.
195 F.2d 971 Packwood v. Briggs & Straton Corp. et al., April 1952
Inventions in an art must be consistent with rules and standards of the art.
103 F. Supp. 227 Stein et al. v. Rosenthal et al., February 1952
Utilitarian products, even if artistic, are patentable not copyrightable.
197 F.2d 336 Lundberg et al., May 1952
An algorithm claimed as a pure mental step is not patentable.
262 F.2d 91 Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy, December 1958
A mental step can't be patented. Automating a manual activity is not patentable.
146 USPQ 590 Ex parte King, September 1964
Novel and non-obvious computer programs are patentable. A computer program turns a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer.
155 USPQ 42 Ex parte Glenn, October 1966
A sheet of paper marked with (music) symbols to form a message is printed matter that is not patentable.
394 F.2d 869 In re Howard, May 1968
(Non-novel) method of doing business is not patentable.
397 F.2d 856 In re Tarczy-Hornoch, June 1968
A process is patentable even if only one apparatus is disclosed to implement the process.
397F.2d 871 In re Bekey, June 1968
Numerical integration circuit is patentable. [depends on Tarczy]
415 F.2d 1393 In re Prater, August 1969
A patentable process is not limited to operations on physical substances or the means used in performing it.
431 F.2d 882 In re Musgrave, October 1970
"Mental" is vague. Process, to be patentable, can have mental steps not applied to physical objects.
442 F.2d 1397 In re McIlroy, May 1971
Mental steps in a patent are patentable. Computer software as a process is a technological/useful art.
409 U.S. 63 Gottschalk v. Benson, November 1972
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.
478 F.2d 1392 In re Christensen, May 1973
Method where final step is a solution to a mathematical equation is not patentable.
493 F.2d 1389 In re Yardley, March 1974
Something can be protected both with a design patent and a copyright. No election of protection is necessary.
502 F.2d 765 In re Johnston, September 1974
Financial record-keeping software is patentable.
530 F.2d 956 In re Venezia, March 1976
A group or "kit" of interrelated parts is a "manufacture" as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
545 F.2d 152 In re Chatfield, November 1976
Operating system algorithm not mathematical and therefore patentable.
553 F.2d 689 In re Deutsch, May 1977
An algorithm with a specific application is a technologically useful art that is patentable. Business method for operating a manufacturing plant is patentable.
562 F.2d 1236 In re De Castelet, October 1977
Solution of mathematical equations have to be used to achieve a result to be patentable.
437 U.S. 584 Flook v. Parker, June 1978
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.
608 F.2d 879 In re Phillips, November 1979
Business method of preparing architectural specifications and project plans using software is patentable.
609 F.2d 481 Maucorps, November 1979
Computer business method for optimizing sales not patentable.
613 F.2d 809 In re Sherwood, January 1980
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.
631 F.2d 716 In re Harnisch, June 1980
A subset or subgenus of scientifically related compounds or features are a proper Markush group.
447 U.S. 303 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, June 1980
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.
564 F.Supp 1358 Paine Webber Jackson Curtis v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fennery Smith, June 1983
Business method for cash management described with flow chart, but with no corresponding apparatus description, is patentable.
888 F.2d 1370 In re Iwahashi, November 1989
Mathematical algorithm applied to a specific process is patentable.
22 F.3d 290 In re Schrader, April 1994
Transformations to data representing physical activity or objects are patentable processes. Dissent supports business method patents.
32 F.3d 1579 In re Lowry, August 1994
A data structure in memory is a physical entity and is patentable.
33 F.3d 1354 In re Warmerdam, August 1994
Processor with specific data or data structure in memory is definite and therefore patentable.
33 F.3d 1526 In re Alappat, July 1994
Patentable algorithms must be non-abstract - useful, concrete, tangible. Algorithms transform a general purpose computer into a specific machine.
42 F.3d 1376 In re Trovato, December 1994
Algorithm as method without apparatus is not patentable.
149 F.3d 1368 State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, July 1998
Economic methods that produce a useful, concrete and tangible result are patentable.
172 F.3d 1352 AT&T v. Excel Communications, April 1999
Algorithm does not have to physically transform matter to be patentable, but only has to produce useful, concrete and tangible result.
EPO T1194.7-3.5.2 Philips Electronics, March 2000
Functional data structures are technical and patentable.
EPO T0931/95-3.5.1 Pension Benefit Systems Partnership, September 2000
Economic and business methods are not technical and not patentable. Decision doesn't define 'technical'.
532 U.S. 23 Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays, March 2001
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.
(AU) FCA 445 Welcome Real-Time SA v. Catuity, May 2001
Federal Court of Australia decision adopting logic of State Street decision
308 F.3d 1193 Texas Digital Systems v. Telegenix Oct. 2002
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.
99 U.S. 674 Perris v. Hexamer, October 1878
Symbols used in maps are not copyrightable.
111 U.S. 53 Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, March 1884
Photographs are writings and therefore copyrightable.
188 US 239 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing, February 1903
Printed and engraved works are copyrightable. Pictorial illustrations and chromolithographic advertisements are copyrightable.
122 F. 240 Edison v. Lubin, April 1903
Motion picture, considered as a series of images, is copyrightable.
137 F. 262 American Mutoscope & Biograph v. Edison Manufacturing, May 1905
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.
169 F. 61 Harper & Brothers, et al. v. Kalem Co., et al. , March 1909
Motion picture, considered as a series of photographs, is copyrightable. Multiple scripts of the same story are equally copyrightable.
23 F.2d 772 In re Blood, December 1927
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.
98 F.2d 872 Dorsey v. Old Surety Life Insurance, September 1938
Method for life insurance policies is not copyrightable.
90 P.2d 371 Barsha v. MGM, May 1939
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.
154 F.2d 464 Arnstein v. Porter, February 1946
Comparing similarities of two works of art, analysis / dissection, is a issue of facts. DISSENT - Comparison should include overall look-and-feel.
161 F.2d 910 Brown Instrument v. Warner, June 1947
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.
205 F.2d 633 Rosenthal et al. v. Stein et al., June 1953
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.
229 F.2d 35 Miner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, January 1956
Method for insurance policy is not copyrightable.
167 F. Supp. 416 Gaye v. Gillis, October 1958
Methods of doing business not copyrightable.
379 F.2d 675 Frank Morrissey v. The Procter & Gamble Company, June 1967
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.
533 F.2d 87 Reyher v. Children's Television, April 1976
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).
414 F. Supp. 939 Esquire v. Ringer, May 1976
Given the Bleistein and Mazur decisions, an artistic design for a lighting fixture is copyrightable.
562 F.2d 1157 Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonalds Corp., October 1977
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.
618 F.2d 972 Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, March 1980
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.
650 F.2d 1365 Miller v. Universal City Studios, July 1981
Research results are not copyrightable.
745 F.2d 1238 Poe v. Missing Persons et al., October 1984
In one of the very few cases dealing with conceptual art, court rules a work of conceptual art is copyrightable.
471 U.S. 539 Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, May 1985
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.
797 F.2d 1222 Whelan v. Jaslow, 1986
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.
812 F.2d 525 Frybarger v. IBM, March 1987
Ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
12 USPQ.2D 1991 Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corporation Sept. 1989
Popular aspects of user interfaces (menu screens, menu bars, pull-down windows, color schemes) are not copyrightable.
499 U.S. 340 Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone, March 1991
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.
49 F.3d 807 Lotus v. Borland, March 1995
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.
105 F.3d 841 NBA v. Motorola, January 1997
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.
F. Supp.2d 983 ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp., June 1999
A musical riff is an idea. Reducing riff chords to single notes for comparing two riffs is inadequate.
199 F.3d 74 Procter & Gamble v. Colgate Palmolive, December 1999
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.
225 F.3d 1068 Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., August 2000
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.
323 F.3d 763 Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., March 2003
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).
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 5380 Satava v. Lowry & Richards, March 2003
Copyright is very narrow for artworks of natural objects. An original combination of numerous uncopyrightable elements may be copyrightable.
283 F. 75 Whiting Manufacturing v. Alvin Silver, May 1922
Appearance, which is the essential consideration in designs, may result from pecularity of configuration, or of ornament alone, or of both conjointly.
514 U.S. 159 Qualitex v. Jacobson Products, March 1994
A color can be registered as a trademark. So too can a sound or scent be registered.
58 F.3d 27 Milstein v. Greger, June 1995
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.
5 U.S. 137 Marbury v. Madison, February 1803
509 U.S. 579 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals, June 1993
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.
49 F. Supp. 116 Plus Promotions v. RCA Manufacturing, March 1943
Business plan for selling music, if novel and concrete, is a protectable property.
180 F.2d 26 Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents., Janaury 1950
6 F. Cas. 904 Crowe v. Aiken, December 1869
Author has exclusive right to control the use of his literary productions.
45 F.2d 119 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation et al., November 1930
The structure of a play is its characters and sequences of incidents.
617 F.Supp. 1 Anderson, Marilyn et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, February 1985
Screenplay "High Stakes" not infringed by "Trading Places" motion picture.
684 F.2d 902 In re Abele (superseded by State Street)
86 F.2d 958 Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber et al.
33 F.3d 1526 In re Alappat
137 F. 262 American Mutoscope & Biograph v. Edison Manufacturing
617 F.Supp. 1 Anderson, Marilyn et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corporation
154 F.2d 464 Arnstein v. Porter
172 F.3d 1352 AT&T v. Excel Communications
101 U.S. 99 Baker v. Selden
90 P.2d 371 Barsha v. MGM
397F.2d 871 In re Bekey
174 F.2d 938 In re Benner and McMullen
188 US 239 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing
23 F.2d 772 In re Blood
13 USPQ 214 Boggs v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents
5 N.Y.S. 131 Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
161 F.2d 910 Brown Instrument v. Warner
111 U.S. 53 Burrow-Giles v. Sarony
562 F.2d 1236 In re De Castelet
545 F.2d 152 In re Chatfield
478 F.2d 1392 In re Christensen
94 U.S. 780 Cochrane v. Deener
6 F. Cas. 904 Crowe v. Aiken
509 U.S. 579 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals
179 F.2d 793 Davison Chemical v. Joliet Chemicals
553 F.2d 689 In re Deutsch
447 U.S. 303 Diamond v. Chakrabarty
98 F.2d 872 Dorsey v. Old Surety Life Insurance
259 F 258 Dunn Wire-Cut Lug Brick v. Toronto Fire Clay
122 F. 240 Edison v. Lubin
414 F. Supp. 939 Esquire v. Ringer
146 USPQ 590 Ex parte King
499 U.S. 340 Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone
437 U.S. 584 Flook v. Parker
573 F.2d 1237 In re Freeman (superseded by State Street)
812 F.2d 525 Frybarger v. IBM
167 F. Supp. 416 Gaye v. Gillis
409 U.S. 63 Gottschalk v. Benson
155 USPQ 42 Ex parte Glenn
340 U.S. 147 Great A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment
54 F.2d 195 Greenewalt v. Stanley Company of America
631 F.2d 716 In re Harnisch
169 F. 61 Harper & Brothers, et al. v. Kalem Co., et al.
471 U.S. 539 Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises
122 F. 467 Hocke et al. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
618 F.2d 972 Hoehling v. Universal City Studios
160 F. 467 Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine Co.
394 F.2d 869 In re Howard
888 F.2d 1370 In re Iwahashi
74 U.S. 295 Jacobs v. Baker
502 F.2d 765 In re Johnston
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.
562 F.2d 1157 Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonalds Corp.,
49 F.3d 807 Lotus v. Borland
32 F.3d 1579 In re Lowry
197 F.2d 336 Lundberg et al.
97 U.S. 120 Machine Co. v. Murphy
193 F.2d 58 Martin v. Wyeth, Inc., et al.
609 F.2d 481 Maucorps
442 F.2d 1397 In re McIlroy
650 F.2d 1365 Miller v. Universal City Studios
58 F.3d 27 Milstein v. Greger
229 F.2d 35 Miner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance
379 F.2d 675 Frank Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Company
243 U.S. 871 Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Manufacturing
431 F.2d 882 In re Musgrave
105 F.3d 841 NBA v. Motorola
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.
564 F.Supp 1358 Paine Webber Jackson Curtis v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fennery Smith
127 F.2d 324 In re Patton
99 U.S. 674 Perris v. Hexamer
EPO T0931/95-3.5.1 Pension Benefit Systems Partnership
EPO T1194.7-3.5.2 Philips Electronics
608 F.2d 879 In re Phillips
49 F. Supp. 116 Plus Promotions v. RCA Manufacturing
745 F.2d 1238 Poe v. Missing Persons et al. October 1984
415 F.2d 1393 In re Prater
199 F.3d 74 Procter & Gamble v. Colgate Palmolive
514 U.S. 159 Qualitex v. Jacobson Products
533 F.2d 87 Reyher v. Children's Television
132 F.2d 140 In re Rice
205 F.2d 633 Rosenthal et al. v. Stein et al.
1943 J.P.O.S. 905 Ex parte S
22 F.3d 290 In re Schrader
81 F.2d 49 Sheldon v. MGM
613 F.2d 809 In re Sherwood
149 F.3d 1368 State Street Bank v. Signature Financial
103 F. Supp. 227 Stein et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
397 F.2d 856 In re Tarczy-Hornoch
139 F.2d 98 Taylor Instruments v. Fawley-Brost
12 USPQ.2D 1991 Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corp.
126 U.S. 1, 533 The Telephone Cases
308 F.3d 1193 Texas Digital Systems v. Telegenix
532 U.S. 23 Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays
42 F.3d 1376 In re Trovato
53 F. 818 United States Credit System v. American Credit Indemnity
530 F.2d 956 In re Venezia
262 F.2d 91 Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy
73 F.2d 982 In re Wait
618 F.2d 758 In re Walter (superseded by State Street)
33 F.3d 1354 In re Warmerdam
294 U.S. 20 Waxman v. Smith
(AU) FCA 445 Welcome Real-Time SA v. Catuity
33 U.S. 591 Wheaton v. Peters
797 F.2d 1222 Whelan v. Jaslow (discredited and ignored)
209 U.S. 1 White-Smith Music v. Apollo Company
283 F. 75 Whiting Manufacturing v. Alvin Silver
29 F. Cas. 1120 Whittemore v. Cutter
493 F.2d 1389 In re Yardley
186 F.2d 377 Application of Shao Wen Yuan
F. Supp.2d 983 ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp.