Case Resources
Oyez Resources
Abstract
Participants
Oral Argument
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/381/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/381/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
DIAMOND v. BRADLEY, 450 U.S. 381 (1981)
450 U.S. 381 DIAMOND, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS v. BRADLEY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.
No. 79-855.
Argued October 14, 1980.
Decided March 9, 1981.
600 F.2d 807, affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Litvack, Harriet S. Shapiro, Robert B. Nicholson, Frederic Freilicher, Joseph F. Nakamura, and Thomas E. Lynch.
Nicholas Prasinos argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs were Faith F. Driscoll, Henry L. Hanson, and Ronald T. Reiling.*
[Footnote *] Edward S. Irons, Mary Helen Sears, and Robert P. Beshar filed a brief for National Semiconductor Corp. as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Donald R. Dunner, Kenneth E. Kuffner, and Travis Gordon White for the American Patent Law Association, Inc.; by Reed C. Lawlor and James W. Geriak for the Los Angeles Patent Association; and by Morton C. Jacobs for Applied Data Research, Inc., et al.
William James Beard and John F. Tregoning filed a brief for Halliburton Services as amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
