![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Supreme Court decision meme
Oct. 1st, 2008 11:30 pmGanked from zoethe, heidi8, legionseagle, etc.:
The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.
Of course, the two I can think of off the top of my head are:
KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007), which expanded the test for obviousness (& thereby made patents harder to get -- the biotech and medical device patent attorneys/agents are v. frustrated at the moment).
eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), which stated that in order to get an injunction against an alleged infringer, the patent holder must satisfy the four-part equitable factors (irreparable injury, monetary damages inadequate remedy, balance of hardships favors granting injunction, public interest not disserved by granting permanent injunction); it basically makes it much more difficult for a patent holder to get an injunction to stop an infringer.
See why I'm thinking about going into bankruptcy law instead?
The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.
Of course, the two I can think of off the top of my head are:
KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007), which expanded the test for obviousness (& thereby made patents harder to get -- the biotech and medical device patent attorneys/agents are v. frustrated at the moment).
eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), which stated that in order to get an injunction against an alleged infringer, the patent holder must satisfy the four-part equitable factors (irreparable injury, monetary damages inadequate remedy, balance of hardships favors granting injunction, public interest not disserved by granting permanent injunction); it basically makes it much more difficult for a patent holder to get an injunction to stop an infringer.
See why I'm thinking about going into bankruptcy law instead?
