Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States (1962). Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660. Appeal from the appellate department, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. 554. 

In order to correct misunderstandings which have been indicated in some instances since the issuance of the Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment, it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States declared The Sherman Act does not require competitive bidding. ... 

Determining the scope of a patent is usually a fairly technical pro-ceding and should be reserved for the specialist. The final answer must, of course, rest with the court of last resort. While the Supreme Court of the United States has the last say in the matter, it is rather seldom that a patent reaches the high court for adjudication. Both patent lawyers and judges find the determination of the question a difficult one, and even the examiners in the Patent Office, while the patent is pending, do not always have an easy time in deciding what is or is not patentable. Of course, the fact that lawyers often differ in their estimates of the scope of a patent makes for law suits. In this respect law suits on patents do not differ from those involving other branches of law. 

In 1993, an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, held that the adoption of the Federal Rules impliedly overturned the decision in Frye. Importantly, the text of the FRE does... 

The Federal Rules of Evidence (ERE) were adopted in 1975. Subsequently most states (at least 37) have adopted their own codified rules of evidence modeled closely on the FRE. For scientific evidence, the most relevant of the Rules are found in Article VII of the FRE in a section known as Opinions and Expert Testimony. Prior to 1993, some federal appellate courts had applied Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to medical and scientific experts. (Rule 702 authorizes scientific testimony whenever it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.) In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an important interpretation of Rule 702. Seven of the nine justices ruled that judges must serve as evidentiary gatekeepers who determine whether proffered evidence is scientifically valid and relevant. The Court suggested several factors for judges to consider in determining whether to admit a particular theory or technique Is the theory or hypothesis testable Has it been tested Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication For a particular scientific technique or methodology, what is the known or potential rate of error What (if any) are the standards that control the technique s operation To what extent is the theory or technique generally accepted in the scientific community ... 

Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1972-1987)... 

IN GENERAL—An appeal may by taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or hnal judgment, decree, or order issned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eederal Circuit ruling npon the constitutionality of section 309 or 320. 

Rhodes (ref. 76) "Rules on alien patents," New York Times (20 Nov 1928), 16 several Section 10 (f) cases reached the Supreme Court together, including case no. 179, Farbwerke vormals Meister Lucius und Bruning, Deutsche Gold und Silher Scheide Anstalt vorm. Roessler, and Badische-Anilin und Soda-Fabrik v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and Walter O. Woods, as Treasurer of the United States, and also cases 180, 181,182, 271-174, in the Supreme Court of the United States, 1931. Unlike the German firms, some of the American importers for German chemical companies were able to collect seized assets under Section 10 (f). "Receipt and release of the H.A. Metz Laboratories, Inc.," 16 Jun 1931, RG 60, entry 114, box 750, case 9-17-10-12. 

Supreme Court of the United States decision in Jacobellis vr. Ohio (1964) US Reports 378 184. URL http //laws.findlaw.com/ us/378/184.html... 

A subtle paraphrase of a famous quote— I ll know it when I see it. This quote is often loosely attributed to Potter Stewart, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The complete actual quote is as follows I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography] and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. ... 

---