Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 313,007+ US court opinions imported from the Caselaw Access Project — Supreme Court, federal circuits, and state high courts. Filter by practice area, state, outcome, and connect with the attorneys who tried them.
Latest Opinions · freshly imported court decisions
The most recent court rulings now available in the library. Click through for the full opinion, the attorneys involved, and related cases.
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc.
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.
Commonwealth v. Gomes
Marchese v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth.
Veolia Energy Bos., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Bos.
Bos. Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court
Commonwealth v. Reyes
United States v. Block
Intellectual Property Cases
2,623 matching opinions . Filter by practice area below, or use the search above for free-text matching against title and syllabus.
Browse by State 28
Browse by Year 40
Peck v. Collins
Peck v. Collins. 1. Under the patent laws in force in 1866, letters-patent became absolutely void on the surrender of them. 2. The fifty-third section of the act of July 8, 1870, c. 230 (16 Stat. 205; Rev. Stat., sect. 4916), declares that
Adam v. Norris
Adam v. Norris. 1. A patent issued upon a confirmed Mexican grant is in the nature of a conveyance by way of quitclaim. It is conclusive only as between the parties thereto, and is evidence that, as against the United States, the validity o
Wicke v. Ostrum
Wicke v. Ostrum. 1. The invention embraced by letters-patent No. 38,924, granted June 16,1863, to George Wicke, for an improvement in machines for nailing boxes, is a new combination of old elements, all of which are necessary to the validi
Webber v. Virginia
Webber v. Virginia. 1. Eetters-patent granted by the United States do not exclude from the operation of the tax or license law of a. State the tangible property in which the invention or discovery is embodied. 2. A statute of Virginia requi
Land Co. v. Saunders
Land Company v. Saunders. 1. The general rule that monuments control courses and distances reasserted in reference to lands situated in New Hampshire. 2. A well-known tract of land, embraced in an old patent, and long referred 10 by name in
Sharp v. Stamping Co.
Sharp v. Stamping Company. Letters-patent No. 79,989, granted July 14, 1868, to Hiram Y. Lazear, lor an improvement in gas-lieaters, are valid. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. The facts
Pennock v. Commissioners
Pennock v Commissioners. 1. Lands in Kansas held in fee--simple by a half-blood member of the tribe of Sae and Fox Indians of the Mississippi under a patent from the United States, issued pursuant to the seventeenth article of the treaty of
Tilghman v. Proctor
Tilghman v. Proctor. 1. Letters-patent for a process, irrespective of the particular mode or form of apparatus for carrying it into effect, are admissible under the patent laws ' of the United States. • 2. To sustain such letters, the paten
Barrett v. Holmes
Barrett v. Holmes. 1. The right of entry of a party who claims under the treasurer’s deed lands in Iowa sold ;for the non-payment of taxes is barred, if, within five years after the deed has been executed and recorded, he neither sues for n
Manufacturing Co. v. Ladd
Manufacturing Company v. Ladd. 1. Where, a bill was filed charging an infringement of reissued letters-patent No. 5154, dated Nov. 19, 1872, which was denied by the- answer, the ourt, in view of the state of the art at the date of the inven
United States v. Schurz
United States v. Schurz. 1. The Supreme Court .of the District of .Columbia is authorized to issue the writ of mandamus as an original process in cases where, by the principles of the common law, the petitioner is entitled to' it. 2. When a
Densmore v. Scofield
Densmore v. Scofield. Reissued letters-patent No. 2261, dated May 29.1866, issued to James Densmore and Amos Densmore for “ a new and useful improved oil-tank ear for carry-. ing petroleum and other like substances in bulk,” are void, — the
United States v. Atherton
United States v. Atherton. 1. A bill in chancefy to set aside a judgment or a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the ground of fraud must set out distinctly the particulars of the fraud, the names of the parties who were engaged
Hunnicutt v. Peyton
Hunnicutt v. Peyton. 1. Exceptions reserved at the trial of the cause may, within such time thereafter during the term as the judge shall deem reasonable, be reduced to form and presented to him for signature, and they are not waived by sui
Garneau v. Dozier
Garneau v. Dozier. 1. Ball v. Bangles (supra, p. 128) reaffirméd. 2. Reissued letters-pa'tent No. 6397, granted April 20,1875, to Duncan McKenzie for a new and useful improvement in baker’s ovens, must, in view of the state of the art at th
Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis
Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company v. Davis. 1. The invention for which reissued letters-patent No. 1904,- dated March 21, 1865, were granted to the Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company was a set of artificial teeth, as a new article of manufac
Ball v. Langles
Ball v. Langles. 1. Reissued letters-patent No. 4026, granted June 14, 1870, to Hosea Ball for a new and useful improvement in ovens, are void, inasmuch as they contain new matter, and are for an invention different from that exhibited in t
Pearce v. Mulford
Pearce v. Mulford. 1. To entitle an improvement to protection under the patent laws, it. must he ■the product of the exercise of the inventive faculties, and involve something beyond what is obvious to persons skilled in the art to which it
Parks v. Booth
Parks v. Booth. T. Reissued letters-pátent No. 1826, granted Nov. 29, 1864, to Jonathan L. Booth for a new and useful improvement in grain-separators, áre.valid. 2. A specification describing an invention consisting merely of' a new combina
Railroad Co. v. Turrill
Railroad Company v. Turrill. Where, in a suit alleging the infringement of the complainant’s letters-patent, and praying an account of profits, a decree, passed in his favor, for a certain sum, was on appeal afiirmed here, with “ interest u
Trenier v. Stewart
Trenier v. Stewart. The concession of certain lands now within the State of Alabama, confirmed to Nicholas Baudin Sept. 15,1713, by the then governor of Louisiana (infra, p. 798), was a complete grant to the donee, and vested in him a perfe
Imhaeuser v. Buerk
Imhaeuser v. Buerk. 1. Letters-patent for a- combination of old ingredients are infringed by substituting for one of its elements a mechanical equivalent which was well known to be such when they were granted. 2. Letters-patent No. 48,048,
Vance v. Burbank
Vance v. Burbank. 1. The decision of the officers of the Land Department is final upon the question whether a claimant under the Donation Act (9 Stat. 496), when he demanded his patent certificate as against other contesting claimants, had
Hall v. Russell
Hall v. Russell. 1. The act of Congress approved Sept. 27, 1850 (9 Stat. 496), commonly known as the Donation Act, granted to each person having the requisite qualifications the right to settle upon and cultivate a tract of public land in O
Need an attorney for a case like these?
Browse 7,507+ verified US attorneys whose names appear in real court opinions. Filter by practice area and state to find someone with relevant experience.