article thumbnail

Atextual Conditions for Patentability and Stare Decisis

Patently O

And, in any case, these exceptions have defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory stare decisis going back 150 years. But unlike in the Constitutional abortion context, we have always had direct statutes guiding patent issuance and enforcement, beginning with the First Congress in 1790. Kappos , 561 U.S.

article thumbnail

Court to decide whether an inventor may challenge the validity of the patent on the inventor’s own invention

SCOTUSBlog

Manufacturing Co. Minerva contends that it has a statutory right to challenge invalidity; the statute does not have any textual exceptions for patent assignors. In addition to all of the above, Hologic argues that the court should maintain the doctrine because of stare decisis. Formica Insulation Co.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Justices uphold a narrow version of patent assignor estoppel

SCOTUSBlog

In reaching this holding, the majority expressly did not rely on stare decisis and therefore did not expressly decide whether to overrule Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Co. To resolve this dispute, the court sent the case back to the lower courts, which had not ruled on the issue. Formica Insulation Co. ,

article thumbnail

Animal rights and the First Amendment, due process and a confession of error

SCOTUSBlog

Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. was filed by a plaintiff seeking to enforce a similar registration statute. Returning Relists.

Statute 105
article thumbnail

Justices to consider international reach of U.S. trademark law

SCOTUSBlog

The facts Hetronic, based in Oklahoma, manufactures and sells radio remote controls that operate heavy-duty construction equipment. The court asks if there is a “clear, affirmative indication” from the face of the statute that Congress intended the law to apply extraterritorially. It owns U.S. Has Congress directly spoken here?