Sas Institute Inc. v. Iancu

The court held that the necessary inducement element of a patent infringement claim must be clear to the relevant audience and affirmative.

The Court held that Amgen's two patent applications on cholesterol-lowering drugs failed to satisfy the enablement clause of §112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

The Court, in a case about assignor estoppel in patent law, reaffirmed the doctrine but held that it applies only when the assignor's assertions are inconsistent with its previous representations about the patent.· AI-written

The Court, addressing whether Patent and Trademark Office decisions on inter partes review were subject to judicial review, ruled that such decisions were not judicially reviewable.· AI-written

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that within context of Leahy-Smith, the government does not constitute a "person".

The court held that a commercial sale of a patent to a third party who is required to keep the invention confidential may place the invention "on sale" under Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, meaning the invention qualifies as prior art that invalidates subsequent patents.

The court held that awarding lost profits over patent-infringing goods assembled outside of the United States with components manufactured in the United States was a permissible domestic application of Section 284 of the Patent Act.

The Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

The court held that Section 262(l)(2)(A) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 is not enforceable by injunction under federal law.

In a patent suit over refilled and resold ink cartridges, the Court held that under the exhaustion doctrine a patent holder cannot sue for infringement over further use of an item after selling it, reversing the Federal Circuit.· AI-written

The court held that laches is not an appropriate defense against a claim for damages brought within a statute of limitations period.

The Court, in a case about selling components of patented inventions in foreign markets, held that supplying a single component abroad is not a substantial portion of the components that can give rise to liability under the Patent Act of 1952.· AI-written

The Court held that the Patent Office's inter partes review process is constitutional.

The Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

The Court, in a case on the standard for induced patent infringement, held that induced infringement requires showing the defendant knew it was engaging in infringing conduct, and that a belief that the patent is invalid is not a defense.· AI-written

The Court held that, when reviewing a district court's resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error," not a de novo, standard of review.

The Court, addressing the requirement that a patent particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, held unanimously that a patent fails it when its claims fail to inform those skilled in the art about the invention's scope with reasonable certainty.· AI-written

The Court held that when a patent licensee seeks a declaration that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee retains the burden of proving infringement.

The Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission.

The Court held that there are no limitations on a plaintiff's ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding other than those in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

The Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act.

The Court held that inducing patent infringement requires knowledge of the infringement, but affirmed the Federal Circuit's judgment against the petitioners under the doctrine of willful blindness, given their knowledge of a related infringement lawsuit.· AI-written

The Court held, in a dispute over the FDA safe harbor patent exemption, that basic research without intent to develop a particular drug is not covered, but the exemption does not categorically exclude experimentation on drugs not ultimately submitted to the FDA.· AI-written

The Court held that for the first time that utility patents may be issued for crops and other flowering (sexually reproducing) plants under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Court determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.

In a patent law case, the Court affirmed the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine.· AI-written

The Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) of United States patent law exempted premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from a finding of infringement.

The Court, in a case on patent misuse and the 1952 patent law amendments, held that supplying an unpatented product especially adapted for a patented process and lacking substantial non-infringing use was unlawful contributory infringement.· AI-written

The Court considered whether living organisms can be patented and held that human-made bacteria could be patented under U.S. patent law because such an invention was a "manufacture" or "composition of matter".· AI-written

The Court held that a final judgment in an infringement suit against a first defendant that a patent is invalid thereafter bars the patentee from relitigating the same patent against other defendants.

In a case on the legal standard for obviousness of claimed inventions, the Court held that a combination of old elements that do not interact in a novel, unobvious way is obvious and therefore unpatentable.· AI-written

The Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement, because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function.

The Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in patent law, confirming that non-obviousness is a question of law but holding that §103 required determining factual questions to resolve obviousness.· AI-written

The Court held that a contract calling for payment of patent royalties after the expiration of the licensed patent was misuse of the patent right and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, state contract law notwithstanding.

The Court extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg.

Was a companion case to Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. that the Court decided on the same day.

The Court limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent.

The Court held that a facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon of nature is not eligible for a patent.