Remove Contract Remove Stare Decisis Remove Technology
article thumbnail

Doctrinal “dinosaur” or stare decisis? Justices wrestle with patent-law precedent.

SCOTUSBlog

An inventor files a patent application on an invention and assigns the patent rights to an assignee — perhaps in exchange for money from the assignee, or perhaps as part of a contract with the inventor’s employer. Wolf principally argued that stare decisis justifies maintaining the doctrine. Matthew Wolf argued for Hologic.

article thumbnail

Zimmer v. Insall: The Power of Arbitration Agreements in Patent Royalty Disputes

Patently O

The Supreme Court directly revisited the rule in Kimble, but ultimately chose to uphold the rule based on stare decisis. Insall centered around a series of agreements between Zimmer and Dr. John Insall related to knee replacement technology. Read the Decision: Zimmer v. Insall The dispute in Zimmer v. Misco , 484 U.S.

article thumbnail

“Feelings run high”: Two hours of tense debate on an issue that divides the court and the country

SCOTUSBlog

He emphasizes the Casey court’s discussion of stare decisis, reading from the opinion and even giving the page numbers in the United States Reports. But viability is dependent on medical technology and medical practice. Casey did that,” she replies. “No, No, it didn’t, Your Honor, respectfully,” he says. It has changed.