The most important intellectual property law cases in the United States were decided by the Supreme Court and the federal circuit courts, and together they set the working rules for patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and now artificial intelligence. Federal statutes draw the outlines, but judges filled in what counts as a patentable invention, when copying is fair use, how trademarks apply online and to parody, what a trade secret owner can do about a departing employee, and whether a machine can be named as an author or inventor. The decisions below are the ones that practitioners cite constantly and that anyone trying to understand IP law has to know.
What Can Be Patented
Federal patent law covers any new and useful process, machine, manufactured item, or composition of matter.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 35 U.S. Code 101 – Inventions Patentable Two Supreme Court cases bookend what that broad language actually reaches.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
Microbiologist Ananda Chakrabarty engineered a bacterium that could break down crude oil. The Patent Office rejected his application on the view that living organisms could not be patented. The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, held that a human-made microorganism qualified as a patentable “manufacture” or “composition of matter” because it was a product of human ingenuity rather than something found in nature.2Justia. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
The opinion quoted legislative history from the 1952 Patent Act saying eligible subject matter should “include anything under the sun that is made by man.”2Justia. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) Chakrabarty opened the door to modern biotechnology. Genetically engineered crops, pharmaceutical proteins, and gene therapies all trace their patent eligibility back to this ruling.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Alice Corporation held patents on a computerized method for reducing settlement risk in financial transactions. CLS Bank argued the patents covered a basic economic concept with a computer bolted on. The Supreme Court agreed and set out the two-step framework that now dominates patent litigation.
Step one asks whether the claim is directed at an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. If so, step two looks for an “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into something genuinely new. Instructing a computer to carry out a well-known escrow process added nothing inventive.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International Defendants in software and business-method cases now use Alice regularly to knock out weak patents early, often before trial, which matters because patent litigation through trial can run from $2 million to over $5 million depending on the stakes.
Copyright: Originality and Fair Use
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991)
Rural Telephone published a white pages directory listing subscribers alphabetically. Feist copied those listings for its own regional directory. The Supreme Court held that the alphabetical arrangement lacked even a “modicum of creativity” and could not be copyrighted.4Justia. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Feist killed the “sweat of the brow” theory that said hard work alone justified copyright. Raw facts cannot be owned. Only a creative selection or arrangement of facts qualifies for protection.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 102 – Subject Matter of Copyright In General Every database, data set, and compiled directory lives downstream of this rule.
Google LLC v. Oracle America (2021)
Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of declaring code from Oracle’s Java application programming interface when it built Android. The copied code let Java-trained developers write apps for Android without learning a new system. Oracle sued for billions.6Supreme Court of the United States. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
The Supreme Court held that Google’s copying was fair use. The statutory four-factor test weighs the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the amount taken, and the effect on the market for the original.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 107 – Limitations on Exclusive Rights Fair Use The Court found Google’s use transformative because it created a new platform for smartphone development rather than competing with Java in its original server-side market. The practical effect: copyright holders cannot use interface code to lock competitors out of interoperability.
Trademark: Parody and Online Marketplaces
Trademark cases under the Lanham Act usually turn on whether the defendant’s branding creates a “likelihood of confusion” about who made a product.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S. Code 1051 – Application for Registration Verification Two cases set the current rules for parody products and e-commerce platforms.
Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (2023)
VIP Products sold a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels” that mimicked a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle, with bathroom humor replacing the original label text. VIP argued the toy was a First Amendment parody that should get special protection under the Rogers test developed for expressive works like movies and books.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument. When a defendant uses someone else’s trademark as a source identifier on its own product, standard infringement analysis applies, even when the product is funny. Because “Bad Spaniels” functioned as a trademark telling consumers who made the toy, VIP had to face the ordinary likelihood-of-confusion test.9Justia. Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC Parody may still help a defendant win inside that test, but it does not sidestep the test entirely.
Tiffany v. eBay (2010)
Tiffany sued eBay for allowing counterfeit Tiffany jewelry to be sold on its platform, arguing eBay should be liable for every fake listing regardless of specific knowledge. The Second Circuit disagreed. A marketplace needs specific knowledge of particular infringing listings before it can be held liable for contributory trademark infringement. General awareness that counterfeiting happens on the platform is not enough.10Justia. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.
eBay had removed listings whenever Tiffany reported them, and that responsiveness mattered to the outcome. The rule from this case is the one every major e-commerce platform now follows: no obligation to proactively police every listing, but a clear duty to act once a credible notice identifies a specific infringing item.
Trade Secrets: Waymo v. Uber
The Defend Trade Secrets Act lets businesses sue in federal court when someone misappropriates confidential information with real economic value, provided the owner took reasonable steps to keep it secret.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1836 – Civil Proceedings12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1839 – Definitions
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. is the highest-profile trade secret case of recent years. Waymo, Google’s self-driving car division, accused a former senior engineer of downloading thousands of confidential files on autonomous vehicle sensor technology before leaving to join Uber. The files allegedly contained specifications central to Waymo’s lead in the self-driving car race.
Trial began in early 2018 and the case settled after five days. Uber gave Waymo a 0.34% equity stake, valued at roughly $245 million. The case showed how fast trade secret disputes escalate when an employee leaves for a direct competitor with files in hand, and how aggressively courts examine whether the hiring company should have known what was happening. Both the departing employee and the new employer face real exposure.
Can AI Own a Patent or Copyright?
Two Thaler cases now answer this at the federal level: no, at least not alone.
Thaler v. Vidal (2022)
Stephen Thaler listed an AI system called DABUS as the sole inventor on two patent applications. The USPTO refused, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Patent Act defines an “inventor” as an “individual,” a term the court read to require a natural person. DABUS, not being human, cannot be an inventor.13U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Thaler v. Vidal The Supreme Court declined review in April 2023.
The Federal Circuit left open a separate and more consequential question: whether a human who uses AI as a tool during the inventive process can still be named as the inventor. That issue is almost certain to generate litigation as AI-assisted research spreads into drug discovery and materials science.
Thaler v. Perlmutter (2025)
Thaler ran the same strategy on copyright, listing his AI as the sole author of a visual artwork. The Copyright Office refused registration and the D.C. Circuit upheld the refusal in 2025, holding that the Copyright Act “requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”14U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter The Supreme Court declined review in early 2026.
Works that use AI as a creative assistant rather than as the sole creator can still be registered. Copyright Office guidance explains that when a human exercises enough creative control through selecting, arranging, or meaningfully modifying AI-generated material, the human-authored portions qualify. Applicants must disclose any AI-generated content and exclude it from the copyright claim.15Federal Register. Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence If you plan to register anything made with AI tools, keep records of your prompts, edits, and creative choices.
Timing Cases That Can End a Claim Before It Starts
Two recent Supreme Court copyright decisions are worth knowing because they control when you can sue and how far back damages reach.
Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
Before filing a copyright infringement suit, you generally need a completed registration from the Copyright Office, not just a pending application. The Supreme Court held that registration “has been made” only after the Office actually processes and grants it.16Supreme Court of the United States. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC17Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 411 – Registration and Civil Infringement Actions Processing can take months, so registering work promptly matters. Waiting until infringement is discovered can leave an owner stuck watching it continue while the application sits in the queue.
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (2024)
A copyright suit must be filed within three years after the claim accrues.18Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 507 – Limitations on Actions In Warner Chappell, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff with a timely claim can recover damages for infringement that occurred at any point in the past, not just within the three-year window. The Court said the statute’s remedial provisions “state without qualification” that an infringer is liable for damages, with no separate time cap on monetary recovery.19Supreme Court of the United States. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy
Patent and trademark claims run on different clocks. Patent damages are limited to infringement within six years before the lawsuit is filed.20Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 35 U.S. Code 286 – Time Limitation on Damages The Lanham Act has no fixed statute of limitations for trademark claims; courts apply the equitable doctrine of laches, often borrowing the analogous state fraud limitations period to measure unreasonable delay. A trademark owner who sleeps on known infringement can lose the ability to collect damages for the earlier period, though laches generally will not bar a claim against intentional infringement.