French
DeutschKappos v. Hyatt
| Kappos v. Hyatt | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 9, 2012 Decided April 18, 2012 | |
| Full case name | David Kappos, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Gilbert P. Hyatt |
| Docket no. | 10-1219 |
| Citations | 566 U.S. 431 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Decision against petitioner, unreported (BPAI 2001); summary judgement for defendant sub nom. Hyatt v. Dudas, 2006 WL 4606037 (D.D.C. 2005); affirmed sub nom. Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009); vacated and remanded on en banc rehearing, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 131 S.Ct. 3064 (2011) |
| Holding | |
| There are no limitations on a plaintiff's ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding other than those in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| 35 U.S.C. § 145 | |
Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that there are no limitations on a plaintiff's ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding other than those in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] The petitioner in the case was David Kappos, who was then serving as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Kappos v. Hyatt, No. 10-1219 (2012), Slip. Op. at 14
External links
[edit]- Text of Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
- Coverage of the case on SCOTUSblog
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |