Tyler v. Tuel - Supreme Court, 1810. Held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. Now obsolete.
Le Roy v. Tatham - Supreme Court, 1852. "It is admitted that a principle is not patentable. A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right."
O'Reilly v. Morse - Supreme Court, 1853. Influential decision in the development of the law of patent-eligibility (Invalidating method claims for "abstract idea", where steps of method not tied to particular machine).
Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard - Supreme Court, 1874. "An idea of itself is not patentable, but a new device by which it may be made practically useful is."
Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company v. Wagner Electric and Manufacturing Company. - Supreme Court, 1912.
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell - Supreme Court, 1913. Patent licensing terms do not include dictating the price of the product.
The Fair v. Kohler Die and Specialty Company - Supreme Court, 1913.
Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company & Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Smith - Supreme Court, 1915.
Minerals Separation v. Hyde - Supreme Court, 1916. Holding valid claims directed to critical proportions of oil to ore in a concentrating ore.
American Well Works Co. v. Layne and Bowler Co. - Supreme Court, 1916.
1920–1949
United States v. General Electric Co. - Supreme Court, 1926. A patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product.
Ex Parte Quayle - 1935. Decision related to the patent application process.
Altvater v. Freeman - Supreme Court, 1943. Although a licensee had maintained payments of royalties, a claim of invalidity of the licensed patent still presented a justiciable case or controversy.
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. - Supreme Court, 1948. A facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon of nature is not eligible for a patent.
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther - Supreme Court, 1964. Extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. - Supreme Court, 1964. Held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent laws was preempted by federal law.
United States v. Adams - Supreme Court, 1965. Wet battery including a combination of known elements not obvious because the operating characteristics were unexpected and improved over then-existing wet batteries.
Gottschalk v. Benson - Supreme Court, 1972. Held that an
algorithm is not patentable if the claim would preempt all uses of the algorithm.
Honeywell v. Sperry Rand - 1973. Invalidated the 1964 patent for the ENIAC, the world's first general-purpose electronic digital computer, thus putting the invention of the electronic digital computer into the public domain.
Dann v. Johnston - Supreme Court, 1976. Patentability of a claim for a business method patent (but the decision turns on obviousness rather than patent-eligibility).
Sakraida v. Ag Pro - Supreme Court, 1976. Arranging old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform fell under the head of "work of the skillful mechanic, not of that of the inventor".
In re Antonie -
Federal Circuit, 1977. A parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable before a determination of routine experimentation.
Parker v. Flook - Supreme Court, 1978. Ruled that a mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application itself is not novel.
1980–1989
Diamond v. Chakrabarty - Supreme Court, 1980. Ruled that a genetically modified micro-organism can be patented.
Diamond v. Diehr - Supreme Court, 1981. Ruled that the execution of a process, controlled by running a computer program was patentable.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. - Supreme Court, 1983 onwards. Involving a fundamental technology required for the artificial synthesis of antibody molecules.
In re Woodruff - Federal Circuit, 1990. Hold that claim limited to "more than 5%" prima facie obvious over prior art teaching "about 1-5%".
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. - Supreme Court, 1990. Held that premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is exempted from a finding of infringement.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. - CAFC, 1992. The court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of US Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. - Supreme Court, 1996. Held that an issue [of claims interpretation/construction] designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge [and subject to
de novo review by appellate court], and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.
In re Geisler - Federal Circuit, 1997. Claim reciting "50 to 100 Angstroms" prima facie obvious in view of prior art teaching that it should be no less than 100 Angstroms.
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. - Supreme Court, 1998. Determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.
Immersion v. Sony - 2002. Related to vibration functions in their gaming controllers. Dropped in 2007.
In re Peterson - Federal Circuit, 2003. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Ex Parte Lundgren - BPAI, 2004. Found that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable.
Iron Grip Barbell Co, Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc - Federal Circuit, 2004. Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness by showing that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention or that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.
EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. - Supreme Court, 2006. Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement.
Bilski v. Kappos - Supreme Court, 2009. Re-focused subject-matter eligibility test on the three judicial exclusions "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."
Ecolab v. FMC - CAFC, 2009. A dispute over patents for similar chemical processes.
Bowman v. Monsanto - Supreme Court, 2012. Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC - Supreme Court, 2015. Patent misuse is governed by patent law policy, and need not comport with antitrust policy if the two differ.