Supreme Court and Intellectual Property Law

In Baker v. Selden (1879), the Supreme Court held that a copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. This decision established the principle that copyright law does not protect functional or utilitarian works, such as accounting systems or business methods.

In Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), the Supreme Court held that a patent is invalid if it claims a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. This decision established the principle that patents may only be granted for new and useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter.

In United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co. (1918), the Supreme Court held that a trademark is a symbol that identifies a particular source of goods or services. This decision established the principle that trademarks are protected under the Lanham Act, which prohibits the use of false or misleading marks in commerce.

In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court held that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and display a copyrighted work. This decision established the principle that copyright law protects the economic rights of copyright holders, but it also allows for fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

In J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001), the Supreme Court held that a patent holder has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell a patented invention. This decision established the principle that patents protect the inventor's right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or offering to sell the patented invention.

In In re Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (1985), the Supreme Court held that a trademark holder has the exclusive right to use a trademark in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. This decision established the principle that trademarks are protected under the Lanham Act, which prohibits the use of false or misleading marks in commerce.

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994), the Supreme Court held that a copyright holder's exclusive rights are subject to the fair use doctrine. This decision established the principle that fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, and it allows for the use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

In J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001), the Supreme Court held that a patent holder's exclusive rights are subject to the experimental use exception. This decision established the principle that it is not patent infringement to use a patented invention for the purpose of experimentation.

In Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992), the Supreme Court held that a trademark holder's exclusive rights are subject to the nominative fair use doctrine. This decision established the principle that it is not trademark infringement to use a trademark in a descriptive manner to identify the goods or services of another.

In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court held that a copyright holder's exclusive rights are subject to the first sale doctrine. This decision established the principle that it is not copyright infringement to sell or distribute a copyrighted work that has been lawfully acquired.

In J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001), the Supreme Court held that a patent holder's exclusive rights are subject to the exhaustion doctrine. This decision established the principle that it is not patent infringement to sell or distribute a patented invention that has been lawfully acquired.

In In re Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (1985), the Supreme Court held that a trademark holder's exclusive rights are subject to the abandonment doctrine. This decision established the principle that a trademark can be abandoned if the trademark holder fails to use it in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered.

In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court held that a copyright holder's exclusive rights are subject to the laches doctrine. This decision established the principle that a copyright holder can lose their rights if they fail to take legal action to enforce their copyright within a reasonable time.

In J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001), the Supreme Court held that a patent holder's exclusive rights are subject to the estoppel doctrine. This decision established the principle that a patent holder can lose their rights if they make representations or take actions that lead others to believe that they do not have a valid patent.

In Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003), the Supreme Court held that a trademark holder's exclusive rights are subject to the dilution doctrine. This decision established the principle that a trademark holder can lose their rights if the trademark is used in a way that dilutes its distinctiveness or tarnishes its reputation.