List of Patent Cases (United States)

Case Citation Year Opinions Summary STUDENT ASSIGNED

2010present
Re-focused subject-matter eligibility test
on the three judicial exclusions laws of
Bilski v. Kappos 561 U.S. 593 2010 nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ABARICO
ideas.
Global-Tech v. SEB 563 U.S. __ 2011 AGRAMON
Stanford v. Roche 563 U.S. __ 2011 Bayh-Dole ATON
Invalidity must be shown by clear and
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership
564 U.S. __ 2011 convincing evidence. BASAY

The patent claims say nothing

significantly more than apply the law,
i.e., apply the natural laws that they
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
566 U.S. __
Laboratories,2012
Inc. describe and that simple additional Invalidated attempt to patent natural law. BAYADOG
instruction, by itself, is insufficient to
transform an otherwise unpatentable
claim into a patentable one.

__ U.S. __, 132 April 17,

Caraco v. Novo
S.Ct. 1670 2012 CHIONGBIAN

Kappos v. Hyatt 566 U.S. __ 2012 CORVERA

Patent exhaustion does not permit a
farmer to reproduce patented seeds
Bowman v. Monsanto 566 U.S. __ 2012
through planting and harvesting without DEMETILLO
the patent holder's permission.
Gunn v. Minton 568 U.S. 310 2013 DIEZ

Page 1
 Myriad's claims are not saved by the
fact that isolating DNA from the
human genome severs the chemical
bonds that bind gene molecules
together. The claims are not
expressed in terms of chemical
composition nor do they rely on the
chemical changes resulting from the
Association for Molecular Pathology
__ v.
U.S.
Myriad ESOLANA
__ Genetics 2013 isolation of a particular DNA section. Invalidated patents on naturally occurring DNA segments, but not on cDNA.
Consequently Myriad's patent on
BRCA geneon the BRCA gene, are
invalid. But because cDNA is not
naturally occurring but is instead the
product of human ingenuity, we
conclude that cDNA is distinguishable
from not patentable products of
nature.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. __ U.S. __ 2013 Pay-for-delay is subject to antitrust analysis ESTIMO

Under Section 101 precedence and

instruction to apply an abstract idea
using a generic computer is not
enough to transform that abstract
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
__ U.S. __ 2014 idea into a patent-eligible invention. Invalidated patent based on abstract idea. FRONDOZO
Petitioner's system and media claims
are patent-ineligible too because they
add nothing of substance to the
underlying idea.

Burden of persuasion on infringement in

Medtronic v. Boston Scientific __ U.S. __ 2014 declaratory judgment cases GATAB

Page 2

Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness
Highmark v. Allcare
An exceptional case is simply one
that stands out from others because
of its frivolous nature relating to the
legal arguments or merits of the
claim. District courts may determine
exceptionalness by considering the
totality of the circumstances on a
case-by-case basis. The Court rejected
572 U.S. __ 2014 the appellate courts clear and
convincing evidence standard that
successful patent litigants would have
to establish in order to receive fees.
Instead, the Court held that a simple
discretionary inquiry would serve to
determine whether granting attorney
fees is appropriate.
__ U.S. __ 2014
Page 3
The lower appellate court construed the
attorney fees statute in a manner that was
unduly rigid. Restricting the grant of
reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing
party in all but two exceptions would
render the statute meaningless and would GUMOLON
contradict patent litigation norms. The
appellate courts interpretation of the
statute would also impermissibly
encumber the district courts discretionary
power to award such fees.
Fee-shifting. JAPOS

Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies
572 U.S. __
A defendant cannot be liable for Induced Infringement liability requires
inducing infringement of a patent direct infringement. The en banc federal
unless some party directly infringes circuit court of appeal held that even
the patentee's legal rights. Direct assuming that Limelight did not directly
infringement of a method patent in infringed the patent, the evidence could
turn can only occur where all steps of never the less support a finding of
2014 the method are performed because inducement of infringement because the MAGNO
the patentee has a legally protected defendant who performs some steps of
interest only in the claim's set of steps the patent and encourages others to
as a whole. A method patent steps perform, the remaining steps may be liable
have not all been performed as claims for inducement even if all the steps are not
by the patent unless they are all attributable to the defendant. SCOTUS
attributable to the same party. reverses this position.
Page 4
 Determining whether a patent claim is
sufficiently definite must be done by
evaluating the patent with the
perspective of an individual learned in
the relevant field, a standard that SCOTUS rejected the Court of Appeals'
accepts a certain amount of indefiniteness test of whether a patent
ambiguity in the patent claim. claim is "amenable to construction of
However, because patents serve a insolubly ambiguous" because such
public service function, patent claims standard is insufficiently exacting. The
must be definite enough to appraise asserted test is that if its claims read in
the public at large as to what has or light of the patent's specification and
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,572
Inc.U.S. __ 2014 has not been patented yet. In prosecution history failed to inform those MANTOS
attempting to balance these interests, skilled in the art about the scope of the
the Court held that a patent is invention with reasonable certainty, then a
sufficiently definite when the patent patent is invalid for indefiniteness. A
taken as a whole which includes the definite claim takes into account for the
patent application, the U.S. Patent inherent limitations of languages and is
and Trademark Office's response, and meant to be understood by a PHOSITA.
any amendments made by the
applicant informs those learned in the
relevant field of the scope of the
invention with reasonable certainty.

Page 5
 A federal appellate court could only
overturn a district court's finding of
fact if those findings were determined
to be "clearly erroneous." Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6)
established this standard without any
exceptions, and there was no reason
to create one in this case. Because the
construction of a patent claim is Claim interpretation in patent, standard of
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
574 U.S.Inc.
__ 2015 essentially a factual determination, it review by the Federal Circuit. MONDIDO
should be governed by this well-
established standard. Therefore,
while an appellate court may still
review a lower court's construction of
a claim de novo, to overturn the lower
court's ruling, the appellate court
must find that the lower court has
made a clear error with respect to the
findings of fact.

Page 6
 After trial court awarded damages to
Commil, Cisco appealed and argued that
the trial court erroneously instructed the
jury that the standard for inducement was
negligence and precluded the submission
of evidence of Cisco's good-faith belief
A defendants good-faith belief that a that Commil's patent was invalid. The U.S.
Commil v. Cisco 575 U.S. __ 2015 patent is invalid is not a defense to a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MONINIO
claim of induced infringement. reversed and held that the standard for
induced infringement is actual knowledge
or willful blindness, and therefore that a
good-faith belief of patent invalidity was a
defense to claims of induced infringement.
SCOTUS reversed.

The precedent established in Brulotte

v. Thys Co.that a patentee cannot
576 U.S. __, 135 receive royalty payments after the
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
S. Ct. 2401 2015 patent has expiredshould be
upheld because there was no
sufficient reason to overturn it.
[Patent misuse] doctrine is governed by
patent policy, not antitrust policy; not
necessary to show anticompetive impact in NATUPLAG
misuse case

Page 7
 The plain language of Section 284
simply stated that courts may The Seagate two-part test that required
increase the damages up to three
times the amount found or assessed. both objective and subjective bases is
There is no language that creates the overruled. This case reviewed both Halo
kind of test (referring to the two-part Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
test in In re Seagate.) that the U.S. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., both of
which used the Seagate two-part test to
Court of Appeals for the Federal determine willful infringement as the basis
Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics
579
Inc.U.S. __, 2016 Circuit applied, and precedent had for deciding enhanced damages per OQUIAS
established that the word may Section 284. SCOTUS held the test overly
connotes judicial discretion. Enhanced rigid and could insulate some of worst
damages serve as a sanction for
egregious infringement behavior patent infringers from liability for
(e.g., willful, wanton, malicious, bad- enhanced damages. Courts should take
faith, deliberate, consciously into account all related factors in applying
wrongful, flagrant, or acting like a Section 284.
pirate).

Page 8

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.
citation
The relevant text of the Patent Act
encompasses both an end product sold to
a consumer as well as a component of that
product. The fact that a component may
For the purpose of calculating be incorporated into the larger end
damages in a patent infringement product does not place it outside the
category of an article of manufacture.
action, the infringing article of Therefore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
2016 manufacture may be defined as the Federal Circuit erred in interpreting PAMPILO
either an end product sold to a that phrase too narrowly to only refer to
consumer or as a component of that the end product. Under the proper reading
product.
of the phrase, an infringer will sometimes
be liable for the total profit from the
component of the end product, but the
Court declined to determine whether that
is the case.
Page 9