Topic
Supreme Court Decisions
About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the problem of extra-copyright protection of databases against First Amendment claims and pre-emption arguments against state law misappropriation of databases is considered, and the authors present the problem as one of the gravitational zone of the Commerce Clause versus that of the Copyright and Patent Clause.
Abstract: Following the Supreme Court's 1991 Feist decision, intellectual property and Constitutional law scholars have debated whether extra-copyright protection of databases can be established by Congress under its Commerce Clause power. This article presents the problem as one of the gravitational zone of the Commerce Clause versus that of the Copyright and Patent Clause. The article reasons that the Supreme Court decisions in International News Service v. Associated Press, Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard, and the 19th century Trademark Cases all point to the possibility of limited protection of databases under the Commerce Clause. The Article also considers the constitutionality of extra-copyright protection of databases against First Amendment claims as well as pre-emption arguments against state law misappropriation protection of databases.
2 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: A summary of the key testimony from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's October 23-24, 2018 hearings on intellectual property (IP) and innovation, followed by insights from the economics literature and recommendations for future study, can be found in this article.
Abstract: This Article provides a summary of some of the key testimony from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s October 23-24, 2018 hearings on intellectual property (IP) and innovation, followed by insights from the economics literature and recommendations for future study. Covered topics include: the role and importance of IP rights in promoting innovation; the role of IP in business and investment decisions, including data on recent investment trends; and effects of recent patent law reforms, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions restricting patent eligible subject matter (2012 Mayo and 2014 Alice decisions) and weakening patentees’ ability to obtain injunctive relief (2006 eBay decision); the high invalidity rate of patents following the 2011 American Invents Act and its creation of post-grant challenges through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); and the general trend towards lower patent damages awards. Key testimony covered includes remarks by the Commissioner for Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Acting Chief Judge of the PTAB, investors and other industry participants, and leading academics.
2 citations
TL;DR: The Court suggested, however, that health plans might be liable for treatment decisions made by employed physicians, and volleyed back to Congress the question of whether ERISA beneficiaries should have any remedy for damages caused by coverage decisions.
Abstract: In Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, the United States Supreme Court revisited the question of whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) precludes state lawsuits against ERISA plans. The Court held that ERISA preempts damage actions brought against managed care organizations under the Texas Health Care Liability Act because ERISA itself provides the exclusive remedy for challenging ERISA plans' coverage decisions. The Court suggested, however, that health plans might be liable for treatment decisions made by employed physicians. It also volleyed back to Congress the question of whether ERISA beneficiaries should have any remedy for damages caused by coverage decisions.
2 citations
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: The patentable subject matter (POM) doctrine was introduced by the United States Supreme Court in 2005 as discussed by the authors and has been used extensively in the patent system since then, with a focus on diagnostic method claims.
Abstract: For a quarter century following the landmark 1980 decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, inventions and discoveries in biotechnology research appeared to be eligible for patent protection, assuming they meet the statutory standards for patent protection. The Supreme Court reopened the issue of patentable subject matter in 2005 when it granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation v. Metabolite on the question of whether a method of diagnosing vitamin deficiency by observing a biomarker was unpatentable as a “basic scientific relationship.” Although the Court later dismissed the case without reaching a decision on the merits, since that time the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has struggled to discern the limits of patentable subject matter for diagnostic methods in old Supreme Court decisions that had previously seemed destined to languish on library shelves. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the authority of these decisions without explanation in Bilski v. Kappos, thereby demanding formal adherence to stare decisis without following the discipline of common law reasoning. To make sense of these decisions as a guide to the subject matter boundaries of the patent system in the context of contemporary technologies, it is necessary to begin with an account of the functions of subject matter boundaries in patent law. In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, the Supreme Court has another opportunity not only to clarify the boundaries of patentable subject matter, but to explain what the doctrine of patentable subject matter is all about. This article reviews developments on the issue of patentable subject matter and considers alternative accounts of the work that patentable subject matter doctrine might do for the patent system in the hope of clarifying the application of that doctrine to new technologies with a focus on diagnostic method claims.
2 citations
TL;DR: The legal rights of property, and the power those rights conferred, once gave employers the unfettered right to direct and control their workers on the job as mentioned in this paper. But since June 20, 1960, as a result of four Supreme Court decisions, management9s "right to manage" has been significantly affected.
Abstract: The legal rights of property, and the power those rights conferred, once gave employers the unfettered right to direct and control their workers on the job. However, since June 20, 1960, as a result of four Supreme Court decisions, management9s "right to manage" has been significantly affected. Businessmen may be tempted to wonder if the Justices are not delivering questionable decisions that will seriously disturb our business system.
2 citations