The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two patent cases this past Tuesday.
You can listen to the oral argument in Commil v. Cisco: [here].
You can listen to the oral argument in Kimble v. Marvel [here].
The Supreme Court has released the audio of the oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
You can listen to the oral argument here: [Listen].
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the pay-for-delay case of FTC v. Actavis, Inc. et al.
The transcript of the oral argument is available here.
The Supreme Court has posted the audio of the oral argument in Bowman v. Monsanto. You can download or listen to the oral argument here.
The OYEZ Project site has updated its patent content significantly over the past few months. The oral arguments from most of the historical patent cases on the site are now available.
I’ve recently been listening to the oral argument from the 1961 case of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co. (Aro I) where the Court took exception to a “heart of the invention” analysis. You can listen to the Aro I oral arguments here: [Part I], [Part 2].
For if anything is settled in the patent law, it is that the combination patent covers only the totality of the elements in the claim, and that no element, separately viewed, is within the grant. See the Mercoid cases, supra, 320 U.S. at 320 U. S. 667; 320 U.S. at 320 U. S. 684. [Footnote 10] The basic fallacy in respondent’s position is that it requires the ascribing to one element of the patented combination the status of patented invention in itself. Yet this Court has made it clear in the twoMercoid cases that there is no legally recognizable or protected “essential” element, “gist” or “heart” of the invention in a combination patent. In Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., supra, the Court said:
“That result may not be obviated in the present case by calling the combustion stoker switch the ‘heart of the invention’ or the ‘advance in the art.’ The patent is for a combination only. Since none of the separate elements of the combination is claimed as the invention, none of them, when dealt with separately, is protected by the patent monopoly.”
320 U.S. at 320 U. S. 667. And in Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., supra, the Court said:
“The fact that an unpatented part of a combination patent may distinguish the invention does not draw to it the privileges of a patent. That may be done only in the manner provided by law. However worthy it may be, however essential to the patent, an unpatented part of a combination patent is no more entitled to monopolistic protection than any other unpatented device.”
Aro Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Co., 365 U.S. 336, 344-45 (1961).
Now that the Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2012) decision has issued, some folks might once again be interested in the oral argument. The oral argument is available on the OYEZ site [here].
The Federal Circuit heard oral argument today in Kappos v. Hyatt. The recording of the oral argument is not yet available; but, you can read the transcript of the oral argument [here].
The ABA posts the briefs, including the briefs of amici, for forthcoming Supreme Court cases. You can follow the briefing for the three patent cases on the 2011-2012 term calendar of the Supreme Court at these links:
Mayo Collaborative Services Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Docket No., 10-1150 . (Of particular note, the amicus brief of the United States is available [here].)
The oral argument dates have not been announced.