Properties (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
School District
|
| gptkbp:applicationNumber |
Docket No. 12345
|
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Appeal
Civil 300,123,456 |
| gptkbp:citedBy |
300 F.3d 123456
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals
|
| gptkbp:date |
2022-12-01
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals
|
| gptkbp:description |
The court ruled in favor of the appellant.
This case addresses the validity of a patent. |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
US 300,123,456 F3
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future patent litigation.
Changed interpretation of patent eligibility. Clarified copyright infringement standards. Set a precedent for copyright cases. |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Judge_Lee
gptkb:Judge_Smith gptkb:Judge_Johnson |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal
Appellate |
| gptkbp:lawEnforcement |
Copyright Law
Patent_Law |
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Intellectual Property
Preponderance of Evidence First Sale Doctrine Clear and Convincing Evidence Doctrine of Equivalents |
| gptkbp:notableQuote |
"The ruling reinforces the importance of patent rights."
"Copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves." "This case will be cited in future copyright disputes." "The patent system is designed to promote innovation." "The court's decision reflects a balance between innovation and public access." |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Affirmed
Remanded for further proceedings. Reversed lower court decision. |
| gptkbp:party |
Party A
Party B |
| gptkbp:precedent |
US 600,123,456 F3
US_200,123,456_F2 US_700,123,456_F3 |
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
US_400,123,456_F3
US_500,123,456_F3 |
| gptkbp:yearEstablished |
2023-01-01
|