2016年10月-2017年9月最高法院知識產權判決書

袁丹吉

上诉人 被上诉人 类型 判决书下载 判决日
Samsung Electronics Apple 專利: 當外觀設計專利的一部份被判侵權時,該賠償是否只針對那一部份呢? SC15-777 2016-12-06
Star Athletica Varsity Brands 版權: 依據版權法101條款中,到底針對一件有用的物品中的特徵是否可得到版權保護的測驗是什麼? SC15-866 2017-03-22
SCA Hygiene Products First Quality Baby Products 專利: 對於逾時(根據專利法中的六年內)未提起訴的理由,是否還是可作為不侵權的抗辯理由? SC15-927 2017-03-21
TC Heartland LLC Kraft Food Brands Group LLC Whether the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which provides that patent infringement actions “may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides[,]” is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not to be supplemented by the statute governing “[v]enue generally,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which has long contained a subsection (c) that, where applicable, deems a corporate entity to reside in multiple judicial districts. SC16-341  
Lee Tam Whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. SC15-1293  
Life Technologies Corporation Promega Corporation Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales. SC14-1538 02/22/2017
Impression Products Lexmark (1) Whether a “conditional sale” that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent-exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law’s infringement remedy; and (2) whether, in light of this court’s holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the common-law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine “makes no geographical distinctions,” a sale of a patented article – authorized by the U.S. patentee – that takes place outside the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article SC15-1189