In the latter half of this decade, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in nine patent cases, perhaps in recognition of the increasing importance of intellectual property to technological innovation, as well as in order to correct errors in lower courts' interpretation and application of patent law. The factual history of Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I is as follows. In June 2003, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") affirmed the district court's determination as to Merck's liability. Merck appealed the Federal Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. October Term 2005

		Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift-Eckrich

One of the statutory bars to patentability of an invention is "novelty." In May 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Federal Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in this case. The Supreme Court has articulated limits for patentability, previously stating that "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" may not be patented. In reply, Metabolite's briefs argued that the Supreme Court should dismiss the case on procedural grounds. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.88

Section 103(a) of the Patent Act provides one of the statutory bars for patentability of inventions, such that a patent claim is invalid if "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." October Term 2007

		Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. More importantly, the appellate court's decision clarified the standards concerning patentability of process claims.
Patent law jurisprudence is continually being developed through litigation over activities that allegedly infringe a patent holder's rights. The losing party in these cases may appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized tribunal established by Congress that has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in patent cases. Parties dissatisfied with the Federal Circuit's rulings may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision. However, the Supreme Court is not required to entertain the appeal; it has discretion to decide whether to grant certiorari to review the case. While the Supreme Court has left the Federal Circuit's opinions undisturbed in the vast majority of patent cases since the creation of the specialized patent court in 1982, the Court has shown, over the past several terms, an increased willingness to hear cases that raise patent law issues. The Supreme Court Justices' apparent newfound interest in patent cases perhaps stems from a recognition of the growing importance of intellectual property to the nation's information-based economy, as well as a desire to correct perceived errors in lower courts' interpretation and application of patent law.
This report provides a brief summary of the Supreme Court's patent law jurisprudence in the following nine cases that have been decided since 2005: Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift-Eckrich, Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, eBay v. MercExchange, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., MedImmune v. Genentech, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., Microsoft v. AT&T, Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., and Bilski v. Kappos.