Archive for the ‘Supreme Court Oral Arguments’ Category

Judge Bryson arguing at the Supreme Court

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

The Honorable William C. Bryson was formerly a Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.  He argued many times before the Supreme Court of the United States between 1980 and 1994.  I couldn’t find any patent, trademark, or copyright cases that Judge Bryson argued. Most of his cases seemed to have dealt with criminal procedure.

Here’s Judge Bryson arguing in Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992): [Listen].

Microsoft v. i4i — Supreme Court Oral Argument

Monday, April 18th, 2011

UPDATED 4/23/2011

The Supreme Court heard oral argument recently in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership concerning the burden of proof to be applied in determining patent invalidity.  The transcript of the oral argument is available here: [Link].

You can listen to the oral argument here: [Listen].

You thought we’d mess it up

Thursday, October 14th, 2010

In the future, I hope to bring you some additional sound bites  from the Bilski oral argument.  Here’s one of the more famous comments: [Listen].

Audio Recording of Bilski Oral Argument Now Available

Monday, October 11th, 2010

The Supreme Court has finally released the audio recording of the oral argument in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

You can listen to the Bilski oral argument here: [Listen].

You can read the Bilski opinion here: [Read].

J. Michael Jakes of Finnegan Henderson argued on behalf of Mr. Bilski.

Malcolm L. Stewart argued on behalf of the government.

Chief Justice Roberts on Oral Argument

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Benefits of a Broad Interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §101

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Aoil-covered-wildlife4s the nation begins to appreciate the impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Supreme Court prepares to wade in on the issue of patentable subject matter in Bilski v. Kappos, one can’t help but be reminded of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) case.  In that case the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of  section 101 and whether a living organism constituted patentable subject matter.  Dr. Chakrabarty’s invention dealt with an oil digesting bacteria that could digest about two-thirds of the hydrocarbons found in a typical oil spill.  With its landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared Dr. Chakrabarty’s invention patentable.  That bacteria would later be used to remediate the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez and presumably will be used on the oil spill in the Gulf, as well.

Dr. Chakrabarty’s invention and the Diamond v. Chakarabarty decision underscore the benefits of an expansive interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §101 — an interpretation that encourages innovation and promotes the disclosure of new ideas. 

You can listen to the oral argument in Diamond v. Chakrabarty here: [Listen].

You can read the Court’s opinion here: [Read].

Nominee — Edward C. DuMont

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Edward C. DuMont has been nominated to fill the vacancy at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when Chief Judge Paul Michel retires from the bench at the end of May.  I could not find any recordings of Mr. DuMont arguing before the CAFC; however, you can listen to this recording of Mr. DuMont arguing before the Supreme Court in Hercules, Inc. et al. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996):    [Listen].  The case concerned whether chemical manufacturers could recover from the United States their costs incurred defending Agent Orange tort claims.  Mr. DuMont has argued eighteen cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Graham v. John Deere — Part 2

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

Graham v. John Deere was decided in 1966 and for the first time since the passage of the 1952 Patent Act addressed the issue of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.   As noted in the previous post, the Court also heard oral argument for two companion cases, Calmar v. Cook Chemical and Colgate-Palmolive v. Cook Chemical, on the same day that it heard oral argument for Graham v. John Deere.  Those cases also concerned the standard of obviousness.

The counsel for the patentee spent a good deal of his allotted oral argument time describing the invention as follows: [Listen].

The counsel for John Deere described the invention as follows: [Listen].

Counsel for John Deere addressed the obviousness factors here: [Listen].

I find the oral arguments of patent cases from the Supreme Court  during the 1960’s particularly interesting in that some of the justices are very candid about not being able to understand patent claims.  For example, Justice Black made these remarks: [Listen] and [Listen]. 

 You can listen to the entire oral argument from Graham v. John Deere here: [Listen].   I believe this is currently the only place on the internet where one can listen to this oral argument.

You can read the opinion from Graham v. John Deere here: [Read].

Graham v. John Deere — Part 1

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Since the Supreme Court has apparently decided not to release the recording of the oral argument of Bilski v. Kappos until the end of the term, I thought it might be of interest to revisit another important case from the Supreme Court’s history.  In Graham v. John Deere, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. section 103.  On the same day that the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Graham v. John Deere, it also heard the oral argument for two companion cases, Calmar v. Cook and Colgate-Palmolive v. Cook.

The Calmar v. Cook and Colgate-Palmolive v. Cook cases concerned a patent on a cap for a chemical sprayer that prevented leakage of chemicals from the container during shipment.  The attorney for the patentee argued that the patent was non-obvious and asserted 18 guideposts to help determine whether an invention was obvious:

 1) A long-felt need for the invention;

2)  An identified baffling problem;

3)  Skilled and experienced competitors trying to solve the problem, rather than nobody trying to solve the problem;

4)  Begging for an answer — pleas by customers to inventive company to solve the problem;

5)  Struggles that the parties had in attempting to come up with an answer;

6)  Failures of others in trying to solve the problem;

7) Was the problem truly solved by the inventor of the patent;

8 ) Consider the results of the solution (old result vs. new result) (application to new products)

9) Manner of arriving at the solution;

10)  The Patent Office did issue a patent;

11) A new combination of old elements;

12)  All the pertinent art was considered;

13) Utility of the invention — simple solution;

14)  Acceptance of the invention by competitors and the public;

15)  Recognition;

16)  Copying by others;

17) Competitor sought the same protection at the Patent Office;

18) Successes by patentee and infringer with the invention.

The following exchange between counsel for the patentee and Justice Black is one of the more interesting discussions from the oral argument where both parties agree that obviousness is a standard that escapes definition: [Listen].

You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen].

Oral Argument in Bilski v. Kappos

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

The oral argument in Bilski v. Kappos took place yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court has released the transcript of the oral argument but has not released the audio recording of the argument.  You can read the transcript here [Read]. 

According to the Court’s policy explained on its web site, the audio of the oral argument will not be available until after the end of the present Supreme Court term.

The Court also makes its own set of oral argument recordings. This set of recordings is kept in the Marshal’s Office for the remainder of the Term, during which time it is not available to the general public. At the beginning of the next Term, the recordings are transmitted from the Marshal to the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Branch of the National Archives. The Archives’ collection contains audio recordings of Supreme Court oral arguments from 1955 through the immediately preceding October Term. Members of the public can listen to or make their own copies of oral argument recordings using their own tape recorders, blank tapes, and patch cords at the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Branch. Copies of recordings can also be purchased from the Archives.