Patent CourtU.S. patent litigation reference

Landmark cases

Each case page lays out the holding, the procedural posture and facts compressed to what matters, the court's reasoning, the framework the case produced, and how the Federal Circuit and district courts have applied or limited it. The eight decisions below are the load-bearing precedents of modern U.S. patent litigation.

517 U.S. 370 (1996) · Souter, J., for unanimous Court

Markman v. Westview Instruments

Claim construction is a question of law for the court, not the jury. The decision that gave its name to every claim-construction hearing since.

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) · Bryson, J.

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

The Federal Circuit's controlling framework for reading patent claims: intrinsic evidence first, with the specification the single best guide. Rejected dictionary primacy from Texas Digital.

550 U.S. 398 (2007) · Kennedy, J., for unanimous Court

KSR International v. Teleflex

Reset the obviousness inquiry under § 103, rejecting the rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation test in favor of a flexible, common-sense approach grounded in the Graham factors.

547 U.S. 388 (2006) · Thomas, J., for unanimous Court

eBay v. MercExchange

Ended the categorical rule that injunctions follow infringement. A patentee must satisfy the traditional four-factor equitable test like any other litigant.

573 U.S. 208 (2014) · Thomas, J., for unanimous Court

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

The two-step framework for § 101 eligibility — abstract idea, then inventive concept — that has reshaped, and unsettled, software and business-method patent law.

581 U.S. 258 (2017) · Thomas, J., for unanimous Court

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods

Re-narrowed patent venue under § 1400(b). For domestic corporations, "resides" means the state of incorporation only, returning to Fourco Glass.

572 U.S. 545 (2014) · Sotomayor, J., for unanimous Court

Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness

Loosened the standard for fees under § 285. An "exceptional" case is one that stands out from others on the totality of circumstances; preponderance of evidence.

579 U.S. 93 (2016) · Roberts, C.J., for unanimous Court

Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics

Replaced the rigid Seagate framework for enhanced damages with a discretionary, totality inquiry focused on the infringer's subjective conduct.