Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes United States district courts to enforce discovery requests made in connection with litigation being conducted in foreign tribunals. Prior to Intel, there had been substantial disagreement as to the availability of Section 1782 discovery.
Medtronic plc is an American-Irish medical device company. The company's operational and executive headquarters are in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and its legal headquarters are in Ireland due to its acquisition of Irish-based Covidien in 2015. While it primarily operates in the United States, it operates in more than 150 countries and employs over 90,000 people. It develops and manufactures healthcare technologies and therapies. It is one of the biggest medical tech companies in the world and is currently the largest medical device company in the world by revenue.
Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate for United States federal courts to abstain from hearing a case in order to allow state courts to decide substantial Constitutional issues that touch upon sensitive areas of state social policy.
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the field of trademark law. The case determined that a functional design could not be eligible for trademark protection, and it established a presumption that a patented design is inherently functional.
Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case related to patent infringement in the medical device industry. It held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) of United States patent law exempted premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from a finding of infringement.
The 2007 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 1, 2007, and concluded September 30, 2008. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2007 term, which began October 1, 2007 and concluded September 30, 2008.
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case, upholding the United States's sovereign immunity against tort claims brought when "any law enforcement officer" loses a person's property. It was argued on October 29, 2007, and decided on January 22, 2008, by the Roberts Court.
FDA preemption is the legal theory in the United States that products licensed or otherwise approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are exempt from various state efforts to preclude their use. It has been raised as a counter to both direct efforts to ban such products, and as a defense against tort claims regarding such products. The doctrine hinges on the assertion of Congressional intent to designate FDA as the national clearinghouse for determinations of the safety of pharmaceutical products, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States placing federal law over state law.
Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.
The exhausted combination doctrine, also referred to as the doctrine of theLincoln Engineeringcase, was the doctrine of U.S. patent law that when an inventor invents a new, unobvious device and seeks to patent not merely the new device but also the combination of the new device with a known, conventional device with which the new device cooperates in the conventional and predictable way in which devices of those types have previously cooperated, the combination is unpatentable as an "exhausted combination" or "old combination". The doctrine is also termed the doctrine of the Lincoln Engineering case because the United States Supreme Court explained the doctrine in its decision in Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp. This doctrine has been considered abrogated by the US Congress in 1952, when it passed the 1952 Patent Act.
In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. The rules of preemption seek to restrict it to only where it is explicit or necessary. In the course of adjudicating cases, the issue of preemption may be heard in either state or federal court.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the scope of federal preemption.
Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that state and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or to modify an arbitration award, expand the limited scope of judicial review specified in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, including terms that were agreed upon by the parties.
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States that deals with civil procedure, and specifically with the question of the burden of proof required in pursuing declaratory judgments.
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."
