Intellectual Property Law

Historical Antecedents

Historical antecedents to the American patent system include:

• 1331 Letters of protection issued to John Kempe in England
• 1474 Patent Statute of Venice (established a "strong core" that subsequent patent systems built upon)
• 1623 Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. 1, c. 3 (Eng)

For more history, see John N. Adams' History of the patent system or browse the library catalog. For a timeline of changes to patent law since 1952, see Ladas & Parry's Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States.

The Constitution

The Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution states:

[Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 8. For more on the origins and scope of patents, see the Constitution Annotated.

Statutes

The first patent act was passed in 1790. There have been four important revisions or codifications since:  1793, 1836, 1870 and 1952.

• The Patent Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 792, 94 P.L. 131.
• Amending Patent Act: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( Public Law 112-29).
  • Statutes at Large: 125 Stat. 284, 112 P.L. 29  (Popular names:  AIA, Patent Reform).​​​​​​​​ 
• Patent Acts:  Title 35 of the United States Code.
  • United States Code  (U.S.C.).  (Official codification of the United States Statutes).
  • United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.). (Thomson Reuters Westlaw). (Unofficial version of Title 35 of the United States Code).
  • United States Code Service (U.S.C.S.). (Lexis Advance). 
  • United States Code (U.S.C.). (HeinOnline). 

Regulations

Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• eCFR:  Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
• Government​ Publishing Office
• HeinOnline
• Lexis Advance
• Westlaw



Administrative Decisions

Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB)

Final Decisions - Commissioner for Patents

Cases

• Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
• Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).
• Bedford v. Hunt, 3 F. Cas. 37, (C.C.D. Mass. 1817).
• Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). 
• Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
• Diamond v. Diehr,  450 U.S. 175 (1981).
• DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
• Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002).
• Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
• Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851).
• Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
• Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron, 416 U.S. 470 (1974).
• KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex,  550 U.S. 398 (2007).
• Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., (Markman I), 52 F. 3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
• Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., (Markman II), 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
• Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
• Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007).
• Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
• State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
• In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 466 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2006).

For more, see Federal Patent Cases.