Court rules on two patent cases, and on high-speed chase
on Apr 30, 2007 at 12:20 pm
The Supreme Court, in a major victory for Microsoft Corp., ruled by a 7-1 vote on Monday that U.S. patent law does not bar foreign making of copies of digital code to be installed in computers made and sold abroad. Current patent law does not reach that far, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the Court. If patent law is to be adjusted to account for “the realities of software distribution,” that is up to Congress, the Court said. Justice John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in the ruling. The case was Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (05-1056).
In a second ruling on patent law, the Court decided unanimously that the Federal Circuit Court had been wrong in taking a narrow view of when an invention is “obvious” and thus cannot be patented. The ruling favored a Canadian company in a dispute over an adjustable accelerator pedal for cars and trucks. The Court in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy concluded that the claimed invention by Teleflex, Inc., was obvious. The case was KSR International v. Teleflex (04-1350).
In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that police do not act unconstitutionally when they try to stop a suspect fleeing at high speed by ramming the suspect’s car from the rear, forcing it to crash. The car chase that led to the bumping and crash, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court, posed “a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others.” Thus, the attempt to terminate the chase by forcing the car off the road was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Stevens dissented alone; he took a step that is somewhat unusual for him, reciting orally from the bench his reasons for disagreeing with his colleagues. The case was Scott v. Harris (05-1631).
In a fourth ruling, the Court decided that if a taxpayer could have sued to challenge an erroneous federal tax levy, but fails to do so on time, may not later sue for a refund. The unanimous ruling came in EC Terms of Trust v. U.S. (05-1541).
In the fifth and final ruling of the day, the Court divided 6-3 in deciding that a local government does not violate the Constitution when it requires all solid waste generated in the community to be processed at a publicly owned facility, so long as the ordinance treats private businesses the same whether they are local or out-of-state. The widely splintered ruling, announced by the Chief Justice, came in United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management (05-1345).
The Court has now recessed until May 14, which will be the next opportunity for rulings on the merits. Its next private Conference will be on Thursday, May 10; now that all hearings have been concluded, the Court is switching its Conference day from Friday to Thursday.
