Judicial Decisions Regarding
Patent and Copyright Theory

Gregory Aharonian

www.patenting-art.com/decision/decision.htm

Today's rules for patenting and copyrighting, in many cases, are based on judicial decisions that can date back 100 years or more. Judges and lawyers fill their writings with such references, often because it is meaningful to do so, occasionally to show off their research skills, and yes, sad to say, to scare off everyone else. But if you are willing to read the cases, you too can play this game.

I have gathered together the full text to lots of such decisions, most of which deal with the fundamental aspects of patent and copyright law. Cases are listed in multiple categories. Some decisions no longer have value as precedents, being superseded by later decisions. Other decisions should have no value as precedent. Some such cases are annotated below.

ADVENTUROUS??? Disagree with aspects of patent and copyright statues and the case law below??? Why not file a constitutionality lawsuit??? Well, click here for the do-it-yourself guide to filing constitutionality lawsuits .

These cases were chosen because they interest me. I have added a few-line description of what interests me about the decision. Each case has a "holding", such as one court affirming or reversing the decision of a lower court, or the lower court accepting or rejecting the plaintiff's charges. How the court reached that decision, their "proof" based on case law and the facts, is refered to as "dictum". Lawyers use such dicta as templates for their own arguments (and so can you), except when they want to insult the reasoning (which they do by referring to it as "mere dictum").

Others statements are just comments, whose citing is not encouraged. Except where they are, Alice. For example, Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen, in a dissent, argued that a certain test applied to abortions. At a later Congressional hearing on her nomination to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Owen admitted the test was based on the minority comments of four Supreme Court judges in an earlier case - a legal no no. (New York Times, 28 March 2003, A11). If the judges and lawyers are doing this, so can you.

PATENTS

29 F. Cas. 1120      Whittemore v. Cutter, May 1813
     Experimental use of a patented invention for scientific ["philosophical"] research purposes is exempt from patent infringement - a fair use.
33 U.S. 591      Wheaton v. Peters, January 1834
     Question: "In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? The result of their labours may be equally beneficial to society, and in their respective spheres they may be alike distinguished for mental vigour." If there isn't a difference, Answer: "It would seem therefore that the existence of a principle [term of protection] which operates so unequally, may well be doubted." Dissent: The "and" of "authors and inventors" is distributive, the subjects distinct in the mind of Congress.
74 U.S. 295      Jacobs v. Baker, December 1868
     Novel architectural plans could be patentable or copyrightable.
94 U.S. 780      Cochrane v. Deener, March 1877
     Process is as patentable as machinery, independent of form of instruments used, if new and useful.
97 U.S. 120      Machine Co. v. Murphy, October 1877
     Two devices doing the same work in the same way with the same results, are the same, even if they differ in name, form or shape.
101 U.S. 99      Baker v. Selden, October 1879
     Methods (of bookkeeping) not copyrightable, but potentially patentable. Artistic methods potentially patentable.
126 U.S. 1, 533      The Telephone Cases (American Bell Telephone v. ....... March 1888
     An art - a process which is useful, is as patentable as a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Descriptions of means in the patent is only necessary to show that the process can be used.
5 N.Y.S. 131      Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, March 1889
     Method of soliciting insurance neither patentable nor copyrightable as idea.
53 F. 818      United States Credit System v. American Credit Indemnity, January 1893
     Business method for using an insurance plan form is not novel. Methods of transacting common business do not seem to be patentable as an art.
122 F. 467      Hocke et al. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., April 1903
     Obvious business shipping method is not patentable.
160 F. 467      Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine Co., March 1908
     Business method without implementation means is not a patentable art.
243 U.S. 871      Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Manufacturing, April 1917
     Patent on motion picture projector cannot be used to restrict which motion pictures are shown on projector.
259 F 258      Dunn Wire-Cut Lug Brick v. Toronto Fire Clay, January 1919
     The inventor or a new and useful product or article of manufacture may have a patent covering it and giving a monopoly upon it, regardless of great variations in the method of making.
13 USPQ 214      Boggs v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents, June 1931
     An idea reduced to writing (printed matter), is not patentable.
54 F.2d 195      Greenewalt v. Stanley Company of America, January 1932
     Aesthetic or emotional special effects are not patentable.
55 F.2d 854      Nestle-Le Mur v. Eugene Ltd., February 1932
     "Machine" is device or combination of devices by means of which energy can be utilized for useful operation to be performed. Patents for machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter differ fundamentally in nature from "process" patents. Process may be protected and patented only as a process.
73 F.2d 982      In re Wait, December 1934
     Non-novel sale of stocks and commodities business method not patentable.
294 U.S. 20      Waxman v. Smith, January 1935
     A method of using materials to perform a function is patentable irrespective of the particular form of the mechanism used for the method's operation.
86 F.2d 958      Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber et al., December 1936
     Lottery business method is a system not copyrightable.
127 F.2d 324      In re Patton, April 1942
     A system of transacting business, or an abstract idea or theory, apart from means of effectuating it, is not patentable.
132 F.2d 140      In re Rice, December 1942
     Printed/graphical instructions for playing a piano not patentable.
1943 J.P.O.S. 905      Ex parte S, August 1943
     Music on phonographic record is analogous to printed matter and not patentable.
139 F.2d 98      Taylor Instruments v. Fawley-Brost, November 1943
     There is no overlap between "Inventors'" "Discoveries" (patents) "Authors'" "Writings" (copyrights). A patented invention should not be able to extend its term of protection by use of copyrights.
174 F.2d 938      In re Benner and Mcmullen, April 1949
     Patentable slight alteration must be more than mechanical/professional skill.
179 F.2d 793      Davison Chemical v. Joliet Chemicals, March 1950
     Only useful application of law of nature or scientific fact is a patentable method.
180 F.2d 26      Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents., January 1950
     Method of testing consumer beverage preferences not patentable.
340 U.S. 147      Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea v. Supermarket Equipment, December 1950
     Combining old elements, or an old and new element, that perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that previously performed or produced by them, is not a patentable invention. An invention must advance science with its' quality and distinctiveness.
186 F.2d 377      Application of Shao Wen Yuan, April 1951
     Pure mental steps are not patentable. Process steps must be performed on physical objects. Process based on mathematical procedure not patentable.
193 F.2d 58      Martin v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., December 1951
     Obvious ideas are not patentable.
195 F.2d 971      Packwood v. Briggs & Straton Corp. et al., April 1952
     Inventions in an art must be consistent with rules and standards of the art.
103 F. Supp. 227      Stein et al. v. Rosenthal et al., February 1952
     Utilitarian products, even if artistic, are patentable not copyrightable.
197 F.2d 336      Lundberg et al., May 1952
     An algorithm claimed as a pure mental step is not patentable.
262 F.2d 91      Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy, December 1958
     A mental step can't be patented. Automating a manual activity is not patentable.
146 USPQ 590      Ex parte King, September 1964
     Novel and non-obvious computer programs are patentable. A computer program turns a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer.
155 USPQ 42      Ex parte Glenn, October 1966
     A sheet of paper marked with (music) symbols to form a message is printed matter that is not patentable.
394 F.2d 869      In re Howard, May 1968
     (Non-novel) method of doing business is not patentable.
397 F.2d 856      In re Tarczy-Hornoch, June 1968
     A process is patentable even if only one apparatus is disclosed to implement the process.
397F.2d 871      In re Bekey, June 1968
     Numerical integration circuit is patentable. [depends on Tarczy]
415 F.2d 1393      In re Prater, August 1969
     A patentable process is not limited to operations on physical substances or the means used in performing it.
431 F.2d 882      In re Musgrave, October 1970
     "Mental" is vague. Process, to be patentable, can have mental steps not applied to physical objects.
442 F.2d 1397      In re McIlroy, May 1971
     Mental steps in a patent are patentable. Computer software as a process is a technological/useful art.
409 U.S. 63      Gottschalk v. Benson, November 1972
     Algorithm with a practical application is patentable. Process claim without reference to particular machines must show transformation and reduction of an object to a different state or thing.
478 F.2d 1392      In re Christensen, May 1973
     Method where final step is a solution to a mathematical equation is not patentable.
493 F.2d 1389      In re Yardley, March 1974
     Something can be protected both with a design patent and a copyright. No election of protection is necessary.
502 F.2d 765      In re Johnston, September 1974
     Financial record-keeping software is patentable.
530 F.2d 956      In re Venezia, March 1976
     A group or "kit" of interrelated parts is a "manufacture" as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
545 F.2d 152      In re Chatfield, November 1976
     Operating system algorithm not mathematical and therefore patentable.
553 F.2d 689      In re Deutsch, May 1977
     An algorithm with a specific application is a technologically useful art that is patentable. Business method for operating a manufacturing plant is patentable.
562 F.2d 1236      In re De Castelet, October 1977
     Solution of mathematical equations have to be used to achieve a result to be patentable.
437 U.S. 584      Flook v. Parker, June 1978
     Some novel and useful computer programs are not patentable. Process is not unpatentable because it contains law of nature or mathematical algorithm. Unknown algorithms can be prior art. Process has to be new and useful, independent of any mathematical algorithms used.
608 F.2d 879      In re Phillips, November 1979
     Business method of preparing architectural specifications and project plans using software is patentable.
609 F.2d 481      Maucorps, November 1979
     Computer business method for optimizing sales not patentable.
613 F.2d 809      In re Sherwood, January 1980
     Conversion of English and mathematics into software is mere clerical function for a skilled programmer that does not have to be disclosed in patent application.
631 F.2d 716      In re Harnisch, June 1980
     A subset or subgenus of scientifically related compounds or features are a proper Markush group.
447 U.S. 303      Diamond v. Chakrabarty, June 1980
     Live, man-made micro-organism, held patentable under 35 USC 101. Manifestations of nature are not patentable. Anything else new "under the sun" is patentable.
564 F.Supp 1358      Paine Webber Jackson Curtis v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fennery Smith, June 1983
     Business method for cash management described with flow chart, but with no corresponding apparatus description, is patentable.
888 F.2d 1370      In re Iwahashi, November 1989
     Mathematical algorithm applied to a specific process is patentable.
22 F.3d 290      In re Schrader, April 1994
     Transformations to data representing physical activity or objects are patentable processes. Dissent supports business method patents.
32 F.3d 1579      In re Lowry, August 1994
     A data structure in memory is a physical entity and is patentable.
33 F.3d 1354      In re Warmerdam, August 1994
     Processor with specific data or data structure in memory is definite and therefore patentable.
33 F.3d 1526      In re Alappat, July 1994
     Patentable algorithms must be non-abstract - useful, concrete, tangible. Algorithms transform a general purpose computer into a specific machine.
42 F.3d 1376      In re Trovato, December 1994
     Algorithm as method without apparatus is not patentable.
149 F.3d 1368      State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, July 1998
     Economic methods that produce a useful, concrete and tangible result are patentable.
172 F.3d 1352      AT&T v. Excel Communications, April 1999
     Algorithm does not have to physically transform matter to be patentable, but only has to produce useful, concrete and tangible result.
EPO T1194.7-3.5.2      Philips Electronics, March 2000
     Functional data structures are technical and patentable.
EPO T0931/95-3.5.1      Pension Benefit Systems Partnership, September 2000
     Economic and business methods are not technical and not patentable. Decision doesn't define 'technical'.
532 U.S. 23      Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays, March 2001
     A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. A feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.
(AU) FCA 445      Welcome Real-Time SA v. Catuity, May 2001
     Federal Court of Australia decision adopting logic of State Street decision
308 F.3d 1193      Texas Digital Systems v. Telegenix Oct. 2002
     Dictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises serve as reliable sources of information on the established meanings of the terms in the claims. A term in the claim encompasses multiple definitions consistent with the specification.

COPYRIGHTS

29 F. Cas. 1120      Whittemore v. Cutter, May 1813
     Experimental use of a patented invention for scientific ["philosophical"] research purposes is exempt from patent infringement - a fair use.
33 U.S. 591      Wheaton v. Peters, January 1834
     Question: "In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? The result of their labours may be equally beneficial to society, and in their respective spheres they may be alike distinguished for mental vigour." If there isn't a difference, Answer: "It would seem therefore that the existence of a principle [term of protection] which operates so unequally, may well be doubted." Dissent: The "and" of "authors and inventors" is distributive, the subjects distinct in the mind of Congress.
74 U.S. 295      Jacobs v. Baker, December 1868
     Novel architectural plans could be patentable or copyrightable.
99 U.S. 674      Perris v. Hexamer, October 1878
     Symbols used in maps are not copyrightable.
111 U.S. 53      Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, March 1884
     Photographs are writings and therefore copyrightable.
188 US 239      Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing, February 1903
     Printed and engraved works are copyrightable. Pictorial illustrations and chromolithographic advertisements are copyrightable.
122 F. 240      Edison v. Lubin, April 1903
     Motion picture, considered as a series of images, is copyrightable.
137 F. 262      American Mutoscope & Biograph v. Edison Manufacturing, May 1905
     Motion picture, viewed as a series of pictures on film, is copyrightable. A picture or photograph, as expression of idea, is copyrightable "writing".
209 U.S. 1      White-Smith Music v. Apollo Company, February, 1908      Copyrighted works are not infringed by their binary representations because there is no perceived expression with the representations.
169 F. 61      Harper & Brothers, et al. v. Kalem Co., et al. , March 1909
     Motion picture, considered as a series of photographs, is copyrightable. Multiple scripts of the same story are equally copyrightable.
23 F.2d 772      In re Blood, December 1927
     One cannot have a design patent and copyright for the same design.
81 F.2d 49      Sheldon v. MGM, January 1936      The broad outline/general pattern of a movie plot is not copyrightable. Unconscious plagiarism is not a defense to copyright infringement. Originality for infringement determination is limited to only those variants introduced into a plot that is in the prior art.
86 F.2d 958      Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber et al., December 1936
     Lottery business method is a system not copyrightable.
98 F.2d 872      Dorsey v. Old Surety Life Insurance, September 1938
     Method for life insurance policies is not copyrightable.
90 P.2d 371      Barsha v. MGM, May 1939
     Any work with pronounced/substantial similarities to another work is mostly likely a copy, especially if one or more persons have a relationship to both works.
139 F.2d 98      Taylor Instruments v. Fawley-Brost, November 1943
     There is no overlap between "Inventors'" "Discoveries" (patents) "Authors'" "Writings" (copyrights). A patented invention should not be able to extend its term of protection by use of copyrights.
154 F.2d 464      Arnstein v. Porter, February 1946
     Comparing similarities of two works of art, analysis / dissection, is a issue of facts. DISSENT - Comparison should include overall look-and-feel.
161 F.2d 910      Brown Instrument v. Warner, June 1947
     Articles intended for practical use in cooperation with a machine are not copyrightable. To copyright such articles would in effect continue monopoly of a machines beyond the time authorized by the patent law. Cites White-Smith.
103 F. Supp. 227      Stein et al. v. Rosenthal et al., February 1952
     Utilitarian products, even if artistic, are patentable not copyrightable.
205 F.2d 633      Rosenthal et al. v. Stein et al., June 1953
     Design patent law is not stronger than, nor does it prevail over, copyright law. A copyright does not give any rights to functional use of work or art. Appropriateness of copyright registration is determined by character of registered work of art as registered and not by ability, intent or hope to use it as dress for utilitarian object.
229 F.2d 35      Miner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, January 1956
     Method for insurance policy is not copyrightable.
167 F. Supp. 416      Gaye v. Gillis, October 1958
     Methods of doing business not copyrightable.
379 F.2d 675      Frank Morrissey v. The Procter & Gamble Company, June 1967
     An idea ("subject matter") with at best only a "limited", "mere handful", number of forms of expression, is not copyrightable, because someone could control the idea by copyrighting the limited number of forms.
493 F.2d 1389      In re Yardley, March 1974
     Something can be protected both with a design patent and a copyright. No election of protection is necessary.
533 F.2d 87      Reyher v. Children's Television, April 1976
     States that thematic concepts are not protectable by copyright, but also considers the "total concept" and sequence of steps (a process) to be protectable (process also not be protectable by copyright).
414 F. Supp. 939      Esquire v. Ringer, May 1976
     Given the Bleistein and Mazur decisions, an artistic design for a lighting fixture is copyrightable.
562 F.2d 1157      Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonalds Corp., October 1977
     Ninth Circuit renames the "idea/expression" dichotomy, now calling it the "extrinsic/intrinsic" dichotomy, with an extrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of ideas, and the intrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of expression. Introduces "total concept and feel" as a copyrightable aspect of the extrinsic aspects, without stating how this does not contradict 17 U.S.C 102b.
618 F.2d 972      Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, March 1980
     Copyright in historical works is narrowly limited to no more than the author's original expression of particular facts and theories already in the public domain.
650 F.2d 1365      Miller v. Universal City Studios, July 1981
     Research results are not copyrightable.
745 F.2d 1238      Poe v. Missing Persons et al., October 1984
     In one of the very few cases dealing with conceptual art, court rules a work of conceptual art is copyrightable.
471 U.S. 539      Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, May 1985
     The First Amendment protects speech of uncopyrightable facts and ideas, but doesn't protect speech of copyrightable expression. (Dissent) Literary form is protected by copyright, not (historical) information.
797 F.2d 1222      Whelan v. Jaslow, 1986
     Failed attempt by 3rd Circuit to extend software copyright protection to ideas - to the structure, sequence and organization of a computer program. Three years later, the Copyright Office rebukes the decision, and six years later the 2nd Circuit calls the decision flawed, outdated and inadequate.
812 F.2d 525      Frybarger v. IBM, March 1987
     Ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
12 USPQ.2D 1991      Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corporation Sept. 1989
     Popular aspects of user interfaces (menu screens, menu bars, pull-down windows, color schemes) are not copyrightable.
499 U.S. 340      Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone, March 1991
     Facts are not copyrightable for not being authored. Original compilations of facts are copyrightable where selection and arrangement of facts occurs. "Original" means independent creation, not novelty. One can copy facts from compilation if expressed differently. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Copyright is not a reward for "sweat of the brow" compilations.
49 F.3d 807      Lotus v. Borland, March 1995
     User interface menu hierarchies are methods of operation, and not copyrightable. "Expressive choices" for menu names do not "magically" make uncopyrightable menu hierarchies copyrightable. Many ways of operating a computer program does not make any one way copyrightable.
105 F.3d 841      NBA v. Motorola, January 1997
     Sports events are not "authored" and therefore not copyrightable, but recorded broadcasts of such events are copyrightable. Facts and statistics about sports events are not copyrightable.
F. Supp.2d 983      ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp., June 1999
     A musical riff is an idea. Reducing riff chords to single notes for comparing two riffs is inadequate.
199 F.3d 74      Procter & Gamble v. Colgate Palmolive, December 1999
     A work that is the combination of public domain elements, elements that can only be combined in a limited number of ways to express the idea of the work, is not copyrightable - the merger doctrine.
225 F.3d 1068      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., August 2000
     Derivative work copyrightable only if underlying work is copyrighted. Photograph of purely utilitarian object (bottle) with no artistic features is noncopyrightable derivative. A work is a useful article, and therefore denied copyright for its shape as such, if it has an intrinsic utilitarian function, even though it may have other functions which are not utilitarian. If idea of copyrighted work can be expressed in only one way, "merger doctrine" prevents copyright enforcement.
532 U.S. 23      Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays, March 2001
     A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. A feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.
323 F.3d 763      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., March 2003
     A photograph has to be "virtually identical" to infringe another photograph if either there are a judge-determined limited number of ways to shoot the photograph (merger) or if there are many similar photographs (scenes a fair).
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 5380      Satava v. Lowry & Richards, March 2003
     Copyright is very narrow for artworks of natural objects. An original combination of numerous uncopyrightable elements may be copyrightable.

DESIGNS

74 U.S. 295      Jacobs v. Baker, December 1868
     Novel architectural plans could be patentable or copyrightable.
99 U.S. 674      Perris v. Hexamer, October 1878
     Symbols used in maps are not copyrightable.
283 F. 75      Whiting Manufacturing v. Alvin Silver, May 1922
     Appearance, which is the essential consideration in designs, may result from pecularity of configuration, or of ornament alone, or of both conjointly.
23 F.2d 772      In re Blood, December 1927
     One cannot have a design patent and copyright for the same design.
205 F.2d 633      Rosenthal et al. v. Stein et al., June 1953
     Design patent law is not stronger than, nor does it prevail over, copyright law. A copyright does not give any rights to functional use of work or art. Appropriateness of copyright registration is determined by character of registered work of art as registered and not by ability, intent or hope to use it as dress for utilitarian object.
493 F.2d 1389      In re Yardley, March 1974
     Something can be protected both with a design patent and a copyright. No election of protection is necessary.
532 U.S. 23      Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays, March 2001
     A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. A feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.

TRADEMARKS

514 U.S. 159      Qualitex v. Jacobson Products, March 1994
     A color can be registered as a trademark. So too can a sound or scent be registered.
58 F.3d 27      Milstein v. Greger, June 1995
     Trade dress law does not protect an idea, a concept, or a generalized type of appearance.
532 U.S. 23      Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays, March 2001
     A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. A feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.

IDEAS, CONCEPTS

13 USPQ 214      Boggs v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents, June 1931
     An idea reduced to writing (printed matter), is not patentable.
127 F.2d 324      In re Patton, April 1942
     A system of transacting business, or an abstract idea or theory, apart from means of effectuating it, is not patentable.
179 F.2d 793      Davison Chemical v. Joliet Chemicals, March 1950
     Only useful application of law of nature or scientific fact is a patentable method.
193 F.2d 58      Martin v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., December 1951
     Obvious ideas are not patentable.
197 F.2d 336      Lundberg et al., May 1952
     An algorithm claimed as a pure mental step is not patentable.
262 F.2d 91      Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy, December 1958
     A mental step can't be patented. Automating a manual activity is not patentable.
155 USPQ 42      Ex parte Glenn, October 1966
     A sheet of paper marked with (music) symbols to form a message is printed matter that is not patentable.
442 F.2d 1397      In re McIlroy, May 1971
     Mental steps in a patent are patentable. Computer software as a process is a technological/useful art.
618 F.2d 972      Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, March 1980
     Copyright in historical works is narrowly limited to no more than the author's original expression of particular facts and theories already in the public domain.
631 F.2d 716      In re Harnisch, June 1980
     A subset or subgenus of scientifically related compounds or features are a proper Markush group.
471 U.S. 539      Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, May 1985
     The First Amendment protects speech of uncopyrightable facts and ideas, but doesn't protect speech of copyrightable expression. (Dissent) Literary form is protected by copyright, not (historical) information.
797 F.2d 1222      Whelan v. Jaslow, 1986
     Failed attempt by 3rd Circuit to extend software copyright protection to ideas - to the structure, sequence and organization of a computer program. Three years later, the Copyright Office rebukes the decision, and six years later the 2nd Circuit calls the decision flawed, outdated and inadequate.
812 F.2d 525      Frybarger v. IBM, March 1987
     Ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
22 F.3d 290      In re Schrader, April 1994
     Transformations to data representing physical activity or objects are patentable processes. Dissent supports business method patents.
105 F.3d 841      NBA v. Motorola, January 1997
     Facts and statistics about sports events are not copyrightable. Sports events are not "authored" and therefore not copyrightable, but recorded broadcasts of such events are copyrightable.
F. Supp.2d 983      ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp., June 1999
     A musical riff is an idea. Reducing riff chords to single notes for comparing two riffs is inadequate.
308 F.3d 1193      Texas Digital Systems v. Telegenix Oct. 2002
     Dictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises serve as reliable sources of information on the established meanings of the terms in the claims. A term in the claim encompasses multiple definitions consistent with the specification.

IDEA/EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY; MERGER; FIRST AMENDMENT

33 U.S. 591      Wheaton v. Peters, January 1834
     Question: "In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? The result of their labours may be equally beneficial to society, and in their respective spheres they may be alike distinguished for mental vigour." If there isn't a difference, Answer: "It would seem therefore that the existence of a principle [term of protection] which operates so unequally, may well be doubted." Dissent: The "and" of "authors and inventors" is distributive, the subjects distinct in the mind of Congress.
209 U.S. 1      White-Smith Music v. Apollo Company, February, 1908      Copyrighted works are not infringed by their binary representations because there is no perceived expression with the representations.
379 F.2d 675      Frank Morrissey v. The Procter & Gamble Company, June 1967
     An idea ("subject matter") with at best only a "limited", "mere handful", number of forms of expression, is not copyrightable, because someone could control the idea by copyrighting the limited number of forms.
533 F.2d 87      Reyher v. Children's Television, April 1976
     States that thematic concepts are not protectable by copyright, but also considers the "total concept" and sequence of steps (a process) to be protectable (process also not be protectable by copyright).
562 F.2d 1157      Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonalds Corp., October 1977
     Ninth Circuit renames the "idea/expression" dichotomy, now calling it the "extrinsic/intrinsic" dichotomy, with an extrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of ideas, and the intrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of expression. Introduces "total concept and feel" as a copyrightable aspect of the extrinsic aspects, without stating how this does not contradict 17 U.S.C 102b.
471 U.S. 539      Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, May 1985
     The First Amendment protects speech of uncopyrightable facts and ideas, but doesn't protect speech of copyrightable expression. (Dissent) Literary form is protected by copyright, not (historical) information.
812 F.2d 525      Frybarger v. IBM, March 1987
     Ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
58 F.3d 27      Milstein v. Greger, June 1995
     Trade dress law does not protect an idea, a concept, or a generalized type of appearance.
199 F.3d 74      Procter & Gamble v. Colgate Palmolive, December 1999
     A work that is the combination of public domain elements, elements that can only be combined in a limited number of ways to express the idea of the work, is not copyrightable - the merger doctrine.
225 F.3d 1068      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., August 2000
     Derivative work copyrightable only if underlying work is copyrighted. Photograph of purely utilitarian object (bottle) with no artistic features is noncopyrightable derivative. A work is a useful article, and therefore denied copyright for its shape as such, if it has an intrinsic utilitarian function, even though it may have other functions which are not utilitarian. If idea of copyrighted work can be expressed in only one way, "merger doctrine" prevents copyright enforcement.
323 F.3d 763      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., March 2003
     A photograph has to be "virtually identical" to infringe another photograph if either there are a judge-determined limited number of ways to shoot the photograph (merger) or if there are many similar photographs (scenes a fair).

PHILOSOPHY/SEMANTICS OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY

5 U.S. 137      Marbury v. Madison, February 1803
     It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
33 U.S. 591      Wheaton v. Peters, January 1834
     Question: "In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? The result of their labours may be equally beneficial to society, and in their respective spheres they may be alike distinguished for mental vigour." If there isn't a difference, Answer: "It would seem therefore that the existence of a principle [term of protection] which operates so unequally, may well be doubted." Dissent: The "and" of "authors and inventors" is distributive, the subjects distinct in the mind of Congress.
97 U.S. 120      Machine Co. v. Murphy, October 1877
     Two devices doing the same work in the same way with the same results, are the same, even if they differ in name, form or shape.
111 U.S. 53      Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, March 1884
     Photographs are writings and therefore copyrightable.
340 U.S. 147      Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea v. Supermarket Equipment, December 1950
     Combining old elements, or an old and new element, that perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that previously performed or produced by them, is not a patentable invention. An invention must advance science with its' quality and distinctiveness.
447 U.S. 303      Diamond v. Chakrabarty, June 1980
     Live, man-made micro-organism, held patentable under 35 USC 101. Manifestations of nature are not patentable. Anything else new "under the sun" is patentable.
509 U.S. 579      Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals, June 1993
     To be scientific, a theory has to be tested, has to be subject to peer review and publication, have a known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and has to attract widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide the standard for what is scientific testimony.

SOFTWARE

94 U.S. 780      Cochrane v. Deener, March 1877
     Process is as patentable as machinery, independent of form of instruments used, if new and useful.
97 U.S. 120      Machine Co. v. Murphy, October 1877
     Two devices doing the same work in the same way with the same results, are the same, even if they differ in name, form or shape.
126 U.S. 1, 533      The Telephone Cases (American Bell Telephone v. ....... March 1888
     An art - a process which is useful, is as patentable as a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Descriptions of means in the patent is only necessary to show that the process can be used.
161 F.2d 910      Brown Instrument v. Warner, June 1947
     Articles intended for practical use in cooperation with a machine are not copyrightable. To copyright such articles would in effect continue monopoly of a machines beyond the time authorized by the patent law. Cites White-Smith.
186 F.2d 377      Application of Shao Wen Yuan, April 1951
     Pure mental steps are not patentable. Process steps must be performed on physical objects. Process based on mathematical procedure not patentable.
197 F.2d 336      Lundberg et al., May 1952
     An algorithm claimed as a pure mental step is not patentable.
262 F.2d 91      Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy, December 1958
     A mental step can't be patented. Automating a manual activity is not patentable.
146 USPQ 590      Ex parte King, September 1964
     Novel and non-obvious computer programs are patentable. A computer program turns a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer.
397F.2d 871      In re Bekey, June 1968
     Numerical integration circuit is patentable. [depends on Tarczy]
415 F.2d 1393      In re Prater, August 1969
     A patentable process is not limited to operations on physical substances or the means used in performing it.
442 F.2d 1397      In re McIlroy, May 1971
     Mental steps in a patent are patentable. Computer software as a process is a technological/useful art.
409 U.S. 63      Gottschalk v. Benson, November 1972
     Algorithm with a practical application is patentable. Process claim without reference to particular machines must show transformation and reduction of an object to a different state or thing.
478 F.2d 1392      In re Christensen, May 1973
     Method where final step is a solution to a mathematical equation is not patentable.
502 F.2d 765      In re Johnston, September 1974
     Financial record-keeping software is patentable.
545 F.2d 152      In re Chatfield, November 1976
     Operating system algorithm not mathematical and therefore patentable.
553 F.2d 689      In re Deutsch, May 1977
     An algorithm with a specific application is a technologically useful art that is patentable. Business method for operating a manufacturing plant is patentable.
562 F.2d 1236      In re De Castelet, October 1977
     Solution of mathematical equations have to be used to achieve a result to be patentable.
437 U.S. 584      Flook v. Parker, June 1978
     Some novel and useful computer programs are not patentable. Process is not unpatentable because it contains law of nature or mathematical algorithm. Unknown algorithms can be prior art. Process has to be new and useful, independent of any mathematical algorithms used.
613 F.2d 809      In re Sherwood, January 1980
     Conversion of English and mathematics into software is mere clerical function for a skilled programmer that does not have to be disclosed in patent application.
564 F.Supp 1358      Paine Webber Jackson Curtis v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fennery Smith, June 1983
     Business method for cash management described with flow chart, but with no corresponding apparatus description, is patentable.
797 F.2d 1222      Whelan v. Jaslow, 1986
     Failed attempt by 3rd Circuit to extend software copyright protection to ideas - to the structure, sequence and organization of a computer program. Three years later, the Copyright Office rebukes the decision, and six years later the 2nd Circuit calls the decision flawed, outdated and inadequate.
812 F.2d 525      Frybarger v. IBM, March 1987
     Ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
12 USPQ.2D 1991      Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corporation Sept. 1989
     Popular aspects of user interfaces (menu screens, menu bars, pull-down windows, color schemes) are not copyrightable.
888 F.2d 1370      In re Iwahashi, November 1989
     Mathematical algorithm applied to a specific process is patentable.
22 F.3d 290      In re Schrader, April 1994
     Transformations to data representing physical activity or objects are patentable processes. Dissent supports business method patents.
32 F.3d 1579      In re Lowry, August 1994
     A data structure in memory is a physical entity and is patentable.
33 F.3d 1354      In re Warmerdam, August 1994
     Processor with specific data or data structure in memory is definite and therfore patentable.
33 F.3d 1526      In re Alappat, July 1994
     Patentable algorithms must be non-abstract - useful, concrete, tangible. Algorithms transform a general purpose computer into a specific machine.
42 F.3d 1376      In re Trovato, December 1994
     Algorithm as method without apparatus is not patentable.
49 F.3d 807      Lotus v. Borland, March 1995
     User interface menu hierarchies are methods of operation, and not copyrightable. "Expressive choices" for menu names do not "magically" make uncopyrightable menu hierarchies copyrightable. Many ways of operating a computer program does not make any one way copyrightable.
149 F.3d 1368      State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, July 1998
     Economic methods that produce a useful, concrete and tangible result are patentable.
172 F.3d 1352      AT&T v. Excel Communications, April 1999
     Algorithm does not have to physically transform matter to be patentable, but only has to produce useful, concrete and tangible result.
EPO T1194.7-3.5.2      Philips Electronics, March 2000
     Functional data structures are technical and patentable.
532 U.S. 23      Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays, March 2001
     A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. A feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.

BUSINESS METHODS

94 U.S. 780      Cochrane v. Deener, March 1877
     Process is as patentable as machinery, independent of form of instruments used, if new and useful.
101 U.S. 99      Baker v. Selden, October 1879
     Methods (of bookkeeping) not copyrightable, but potentially patentable. Artistic methods potentially patentable.
126 U.S. 1, 533      The Telephone Cases (American Bell Telephone v. ....... March 1888
     An art - a process which is useful, is as patentable as a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Descriptions of means in the patent is only necessary to show that the process can be used.
5 N.Y.S. 131      Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, March 1889
     Method of soliciting insurance neither patentable nor copyrightable as idea.
53 F. 818      United States Credit System v. American Credit Indemnity, January 1893
     Business method for using an insurance plan form is not novel. Methods of transacting common business do not seem to be patentable as an art.
122 F. 467      Hocke et al. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., April 1903
     Obvious business shipping method is not patentable.
160 F. 467      Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine Co., March 1908
     Business method without implementation means is not a patentable art.
73 F.2d 982      In re Wait, December 1934
     Non-novel sale of stocks and commodities business method not patentable.
98 F.2d 872      Dorsey v. Old Surety Life Insurance, September 1938
     Method for life insurance policies is not copyrightable.
127 F.2d 324      In re Patton, April 1942
     A system of transacting business, or an abstract idea or theory, apart from means of effectuating it, is not patentable.
49 F. Supp. 116      Plus Promotions v. RCA Manufacturing, March 1943
     Business plan for selling music, if novel and concrete, is a protectable property.
180 F.2d 26      Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents., Janaury 1950
     Method of testing consumer beverage preferences not patentable.
186 F.2d 377      Application of Shao Wen Yuan, April 1951
     Pure mental steps are not patentable. Process steps must be performed on physical objects. Process based on mathematical procedure not patentable.
195 F.2d 971      Packwood v. Briggs & Straton Corp. et al., April 1952
     Inventions in an art must be consistent with rules and standards of the art.
229 F.2d 35      Miner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, January 1956
     Method for insurance policy is not copyrightable.
167 F. Supp. 416      Gaye v. Gillis, October 1958
     Methods of doing business not copyrightable.
262 F.2d 91      Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy, December 1958
     A mental step can't be patented. Automating a manual activity is not patentable.
394 F.2d 869      In re Howard, May 1968
     (Non-novel) method of doing business is not patentable.
415 F.2d 1393      In re Prater, August 1969
     A patentable process is not limited to operations on physical substances or the means used in performing it.
431 F.2d 882      In re Musgrave, October 1970
     "Mental" is vague. Process, to be patentable, can have mental steps not applied to physical objects.
502 F.2d 765      In re Johnston, September 1974
     Financial record-keeping software is patentable.
553 F.2d 689      In re Deutsch, May 1977
     An algorithm with a specific application is a technologically useful art that is patentable. Business method for operating a manufacturing plant is patentable.
608 F.2d 879      In re Phillips, November 1979
     Business method of preparing architectural specifications and project plans using software is patentable.
609 F.2d 481      Maucorps, November 1979
     Computer business method for optimizing sales not patentable.
564 F.Supp 1358      Paine Webber Jackson Curtis v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fennery Smith, June 1983
     Business method for cash management described with flow chart, but with no corresponding apparatus description, is patentable.
22 F.3d 290      In re Schrader, April 1994
     Transformations to data representing physical activity or objects are patentable processes. Dissent supports business method patents.
149 F.3d 1368      State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, July 1998
     Economic methods that produce a useful, concrete and tangible result are patentable.
172 F.3d 1352      AT&T v. Excel Communications, April 1999
     Algorithm does not have to physically transform matter to be patentable, but only has to produce useful, concrete and tangible result.
EPO T0931/95-3.5.1      Pension Benefit Systems Partnership, September 2000
     Economic and business methods are not technical and not patentable. Decision doesn't define 'technical'.
(AU) FCA 445      Welcome Real-Time SA v. Catuity, May 2001
     Federal Court of Australia decision adopting logic of State Street decision

ART & ENTERTAINMENT

6 F. Cas. 904      Crowe v. Aiken, December 1869
     Author has exclusive right to control the use of his literary productions.
99 U.S. 674      Perris v. Hexamer, October 1878
     Symbols used in maps are not copyrightable.
111 U.S. 53      Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, March 1884
     Photographs are writings and therefore copyrightable.
122 F. 240      Edison v. Lubin, April 1903
     Motion picture, considered as a series of images, is copyrightable.
137 F. 262      American Mutoscope & Biograph v. Edison Manufacturing, May 1905
     Motion picture, viewed as a series of pictures on film, is copyrightable. A picture or photograph, as expression of idea, is copyrightable "writing".
209 U.S. 1      White-Smith Music v. Apollo Company, February, 1908      Copyrighted works are not infringed by their binary representations because there is no perceived expression with the representations.
169 F. 61      Harper & Brothers, et al. v. Kalem Co., et al. , March 1909
     Motion picture, considered as a series of photographs, is copyrightable. Multiple scripts of the same story are equally copyrightable.
243 U.S. 871      Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Manufacturing, April 1917
     Patent on motion picture projector cannot be used to restrict which motion pictures are shown on projector.
45 F.2d 119      Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation et al., November 1930
     The structure of a play is its characters and sequences of incidents.
54 F.2d 195      Greenewalt v. Stanley Company of America, January 1932
     Aesthetic or emotional special effects are not patentable.
81 F.2d 49      Sheldon v. MGM, January 1936      The broad outline/general pattern of a movie plot is not copyrightable. Unconscious plagiarism is not a defense to copyright infringement. Originality for infringement determination is limited to only those variants introduced into a plot that is in the prior art.
90 P.2d 371      Barsha v. MGM, May 1939
     Any work with pronounced/substantial similarities to another work is mostly likely a copy, especially if one or more persons have a relationship to both works.
132 F.2d 140      In re Rice, December 1942
     Printed/graphical instructions for playing a piano not patentable.
1943 J.P.O.S. 905      Ex parte S, August 1943
     Music on phonographic record is analogous to printed matter and not patentable.
154 F.2d 464      Arnstein v. Porter, February 1946
     Comparing similarities of two works of art, analysis / dissection, is a issue of facts. DISSENT - Comparison should include overall look-and-feel.
155 USPQ 42      Ex parte Glenn, October 1966
     A sheet of paper marked with (music) symbols to form a message is printed matter that is not patentable.
533 F.2d 87      Reyher v. Children's Television, April 1976
     States that thematic concepts are not protectable by copyright, but also considers the "total concept" and sequence of steps (a process) to be protectable (process also not be protectable by copyright).
414 F. Supp. 939      Esquire v. Ringer, May 1976
     Given the Bleistein and Mazur decisions, an artistic design for a lighting fixture is copyrightable.
562 F.2d 1157      Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonalds Corp., October 1977
     Ninth Circuit renames the "idea/expression" dichotomy, now calling it the "extrinsic/intrinsic" dichotomy, with an extrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of ideas, and the intrinsic test being for the substantial similarity of expression. Introduces "total concept and feel" as a copyrightable aspect of the extrinsic aspects, without stating how this does not contradict 17 U.S.C 102b.
650 F.2d 1365      Miller v. Universal City Studios, July 1981
     Research results are not copyrightable.
745 F.2d 1238      Poe v. Missing Persons et al., October 1984
     In one of the very few cases dealing with conceptual art, court rules a work of conceptual art is copyrightable.
617 F.Supp. 1      Anderson, Marilyn et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, February 1985
     Screenplay "High Stakes" not infringed by "Trading Places" motion picture.
105 F.3d 841      NBA v. Motorola, January 1997
     Sports events are not "authored" and therefore not copyrightable, but recorded broadcasts of such events are copyrightable. Facts and statistics about sports events are not copyrightable.
F. Supp.2d 983      ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp., June 1999
     A musical riff is an idea. Reducing riff chords to single notes for comparing two riffs is inadequate.
225 F.3d 1068      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., August 2000
     Derivative work copyrightable only if underlying work is copyrighted. Photograph of purely utilitarian object (bottle) with no artistic features is noncopyrightable derivative. A work is a useful article, and therefore denied copyright for its shape as such, if it has an intrinsic utilitarian function, even though it may have other functions which are not utilitarian. If idea of copyrighted work can be expressed in only one way, "merger doctrine" prevents copyright enforcement.
323 F.3d 763      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al., March 2003
     A photograph has to be "virtually identical" to infringe another photograph if either there are a judge-determined limited number of ways to shoot the photograph (merger) or if there are many similar photographs (scenes a fair).
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 5380      Satava v. Lowry & Richards, March 2003
     Copyright is very narrow for artworks of natural objects. An original combination of numerous uncopyrightable elements may be copyrightable.

Alphabetical list of cases

684 F.2d 902      In re Abele (superseded by State Street)
86 F.2d 958      Affiliated Enterprises v. Gruber et al.
33 F.3d 1526      In re Alappat
137 F. 262      American Mutoscope & Biograph v. Edison Manufacturing
617 F.Supp. 1      Anderson, Marilyn et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corporation
154 F.2d 464      Arnstein v. Porter
172 F.3d 1352      AT&T v. Excel Communications
101 U.S. 99      Baker v. Selden
90 P.2d 371      Barsha v. MGM
397F.2d 871      In re Bekey
174 F.2d 938      In re Benner and McMullen
188 US 239      Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing
23 F.2d 772      In re Blood
13 USPQ 214      Boggs v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents
5 N.Y.S. 131      Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
161 F.2d 910      Brown Instrument v. Warner
111 U.S. 53      Burrow-Giles v. Sarony
562 F.2d 1236      In re De Castelet
545 F.2d 152      In re Chatfield
478 F.2d 1392      In re Christensen
94 U.S. 780      Cochrane v. Deener
6 F. Cas. 904      Crowe v. Aiken
509 U.S. 579      Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals
179 F.2d 793      Davison Chemical v. Joliet Chemicals
553 F.2d 689      In re Deutsch
447 U.S. 303      Diamond v. Chakrabarty
98 F.2d 872      Dorsey v. Old Surety Life Insurance
259 F 258      Dunn Wire-Cut Lug Brick v. Toronto Fire Clay
122 F. 240      Edison v. Lubin
414 F. Supp. 939      Esquire v. Ringer
146 USPQ 590      Ex parte King
499 U.S. 340      Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone
437 U.S. 584      Flook v. Parker
573 F.2d 1237      In re Freeman (superseded by State Street)
812 F.2d 525      Frybarger v. IBM
167 F. Supp. 416      Gaye v. Gillis
409 U.S. 63      Gottschalk v. Benson
155 USPQ 42      Ex parte Glenn
340 U.S. 147      Great A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment
54 F.2d 195      Greenewalt v. Stanley Company of America
631 F.2d 716      In re Harnisch
169 F. 61      Harper & Brothers, et al. v. Kalem Co., et al.
471 U.S. 539      Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises
122 F. 467      Hocke et al. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
618 F.2d 972      Hoehling v. Universal City Studios
160 F. 467      Hotel Security Checking v. Lorraine Co.
394 F.2d 869      In re Howard
888 F.2d 1370      In re Iwahashi
74 U.S. 295      Jacobs v. Baker
502 F.2d 765      In re Johnston
180 F.2d 26      Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents.
225 F.3d 1068      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al.
323 F.3d 763      Joshua Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. et al.
562 F.2d 1157      Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonalds Corp.,
49 F.3d 807      Lotus v. Borland
32 F.3d 1579      In re Lowry
197 F.2d 336      Lundberg et al.
97 U.S. 120      Machine Co. v. Murphy
193 F.2d 58      Martin v. Wyeth, Inc., et al.
609 F.2d 481      Maucorps
442 F.2d 1397      In re McIlroy
650 F.2d 1365      Miller v. Universal City Studios
58 F.3d 27      Milstein v. Greger
229 F.2d 35      Miner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance
379 F.2d 675      Frank Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Company
243 U.S. 871      Motion Picture Patents v. Universal Film Manufacturing
431 F.2d 882      In re Musgrave
105 F.3d 841      NBA v. Motorola
55 F.2d 854      Nestle-Le Mur v. Eugene Ltd.
45 F.2d 119      Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. et al.
195 F.2d 971      Packwood v. Briggs & Straton Corp. et al.
564 F.Supp 1358      Paine Webber Jackson Curtis v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fennery Smith
127 F.2d 324      In re Patton
99 U.S. 674      Perris v. Hexamer
EPO T0931/95-3.5.1      Pension Benefit Systems Partnership
EPO T1194.7-3.5.2      Philips Electronics
608 F.2d 879      In re Phillips
49 F. Supp. 116      Plus Promotions v. RCA Manufacturing
745 F.2d 1238      Poe v. Missing Persons et al. October 1984
415 F.2d 1393      In re Prater
199 F.3d 74      Procter & Gamble v. Colgate Palmolive
514 U.S. 159      Qualitex v. Jacobson Products
533 F.2d 87      Reyher v. Children's Television
132 F.2d 140      In re Rice
205 F.2d 633      Rosenthal et al. v. Stein et al.
1943 J.P.O.S. 905      Ex parte S
22 F.3d 290      In re Schrader
81 F.2d 49      Sheldon v. MGM
613 F.2d 809      In re Sherwood
149 F.3d 1368      State Street Bank v. Signature Financial
103 F. Supp. 227      Stein et al. v. Rosenthal et al.
397 F.2d 856      In re Tarczy-Hornoch
139 F.2d 98      Taylor Instruments v. Fawley-Brost
12 USPQ.2D 1991      Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corp.
126 U.S. 1, 533      The Telephone Cases
308 F.3d 1193      Texas Digital Systems v. Telegenix
532 U.S. 23      Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays
42 F.3d 1376      In re Trovato
53 F. 818      United States Credit System v. American Credit Indemnity
530 F.2d 956      In re Venezia
262 F.2d 91      Venner, William v. Bowser, Percy
73 F.2d 982      In re Wait
618 F.2d 758      In re Walter (superseded by State Street)
33 F.3d 1354      In re Warmerdam
294 U.S. 20      Waxman v. Smith
(AU) FCA 445      Welcome Real-Time SA v. Catuity
33 U.S. 591      Wheaton v. Peters
797 F.2d 1222      Whelan v. Jaslow (discredited and ignored)
209 U.S. 1      White-Smith Music v. Apollo Company
283 F. 75      Whiting Manufacturing v. Alvin Silver
29 F. Cas. 1120      Whittemore v. Cutter
493 F.2d 1389      In re Yardley
186 F.2d 377      Application of Shao Wen Yuan
F. Supp.2d 983      ZZ TOP v. Chrysler Corp.