LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. PROMEGA CORP., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)

Issues: Intellectual Property, Patents

NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit […]

Read More

ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC., 568 U.S. ___ (2013)

Issues: Article III, Intellectual Property, Trademarks, Voluntary Cessation Doctrine

133 S.Ct. 721 (2013) 184 L. Ed. 2d 553 ALREADY, LLC, dba Yums, Petitioner v. NIKE, INC. Supreme Court of United States. No. 11-982. Argued November 7, 2012. Decided January 9, 2013. Counsel: James W. Dabney, New York, NY, for Petitioner. Ginger D. Anders, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of […]

Read More

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2016)

Issues: Intellectual Property, Patents

NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit […]

Read More

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Issues: Copyrights, First Sale Doctrine, Intellectual Property

NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit […]

Read More

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Issues: Intellectual Property, Patents

NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit […]

Read More

United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948)

Issues: Antitrust Law, Hub-and-spoke conspiracy, Patents, Price-Fixing, Sherman Antitrust Act

333 U.S. 287 333 U.S. 287 68 S.Ct. 550 92 L.Ed. 701 UNITED STATESv.LINE MATERIALS CO. et al. No. 8. Reargued Nov. 12, 13, 1947. Decided March 8, 1948. Mr. Frederick Bernays Wiener, of Providence, R.I., for appellant. Mr. John Lord O’Brian, of Washington, D.C., for appellees. Mr. Albert R. Connelly, of New York City, […]

Read More

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (2015)

Issues: Intellectual Property, Trademarks

United States Supreme Court B&B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC., DBA SEALTITE BUILDING FASTENERS ET AL., ET AL., (2015) No. 13-352 Argued: December 2, 2014????Decided: March 24, 2015 Syllabus Respondent Hargis Industries, Inc. (Hargis), tried to register its trademark for SEALTITE with the United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to the Lanham Act. […]

Read More