Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Patent : From 10/01/05 To 07/01/06
Number of summaries found: 4
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent, Per Curiam |
| Title: | Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc. |
| Date: | 06/22/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–607 |
| Summary: | A writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies |
| Title: | eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. |
| Date: | 05/15/06 |
| Case Number: | 05–130 |
| Summary: | The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. A judgment reversing the denial of a motion for permanent injunctive relief in a patent infringement case against eBay is vacated where neither court below correctly applied the traditional four-factor framework that governs an award of injunctive relief. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Contracts, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent |
| Title: | Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc. |
| Date: | 03/01/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1329 |
| Summary: | In the context of antitrust claims, since a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon a patentee, in all cases involving a "tying" arrangement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Food & Beverages, Intellectual Property, Patent |
| Title: | Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. |
| Date: | 01/23/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–597 |
| Summary: | Grant of a new trial pursuant to a review for sufficiency of the evidence in an antitrust case is vacated where defendant failed to renew its preverdict motion for a directed verdict as specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), and thus, the circuit court had no basis for reviewing defendant's sufficiency of the evidence challenge. |