Which Supreme Court justices have been the most anti-intellectual property?
<p>Which Supreme Court justices, present or historical, have ruled the most against intellectual property rights?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Which Supreme Court justices, present or historical, have ruled the
  most against intellectual property rights?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of intellectual property rights, overturned more expansive rulings of the Federal Circuit, and overridden Patent and Trademark Office policies consistently. </p>

<p>All but two the 26 U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject (pro or anti-IP holder) in the last 13 years (both in 2018) have either been unanimous or had only one dissenter (with no one consistent dissenting justices). </p>

<p>The two 2018 cases with more than one dissenting justice, each involving the <em>inter partes</em> review of previously grated patents by the PTO under a new patent statute, implicate separation of powers and civil procedure issues that have historically been more controversial than pure intellectual property issues.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</em> (2018) (7-2 with Gorsuch and Roberts dissenting) (upholding PTO invalidation of
  previously granted patents); </p>
  
  <p><em>SAS Institute v. INACU</em> (2018) (5-4 with Ginsberg, Breyer,
  Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting)(expanding scope of PTO reconsideration of previously granted patents).</p>
  
  <p><em>Matal v. Tam</em> (2017) (unanimous) (overturning PTO policy on offensive trademarks); </p>
  
  <p><em>Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.</em> (2017) (unanimous) (weakening patent protections vis-a-vis biologically similar drugs to patented ones); </p>
  
  <p><em>Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.</em> (2017) (7-1 Ginsberg joining the ruling in part and
  dissenting in part) (weakening rights of patent holders); </p>
  
  <p><em>TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC</em> (2017) (8-0) (overruling Federal Circuit by limiting venue in patent infringement cases); </p>
  
  <p><em>SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC</em> (2017) (7-1 with Breyer
  dissenting) (disallowing laches defense to patent law claims); </p>
  
  <p><em>Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc.</em> (2016) (unanimous) (limiting damages awards in multi-component products where only some components are
  infringing); </p>
  
  <p><em>Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health &amp; Fitness, Inc.</em> (2014) (unanimous) and <em>Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Management Systems</em> (2014)
  (unanimous) (the Federal Circuit had set too high a standard for the
  recovery of attorneys' fees for frivolous patent prosecutions); </p>
  
  <p><em>Alice v. CLS Bank, Int'l.</em> (2014) (unanimous) (limiting software patents); </p>
  
  <p><em>Medtronic v. Mirowski</em> (2014) (unanimous) (burden of proof wrongly placed on someone other than the patent holder); </p>
  
  <p><em>Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics</em> (2013) (unanimous) (invalidated patents on naturally occurring DNA
  sequences); </p>
  
  <p><em>Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.</em> (2012) (unanimous) (district court's factual findings made clear that drug
  monitoring device patent merely restated a law of nature and was
  invalid); </p>
  
  <p><em>Caraco v. Novo</em> (2012) (unanimous) (alleged infringers right to bring counterclaims expanded); </p>
  
  <p><em>Bowman v. Monsanto Co.</em> (2012) (unanimous) (first sale doctrine does not invalidate ban on reproducing crops grown with patented GMO
  seeds); </p>
  
  <p><em>Kappos v. Hyatt</em> (2012) (unanimous)(expanding ability of applicant denied a patent to challenge the denial with additional evidence); </p>
  
  <p><em>Global-Tech v. SEB</em> (2011) (8-1, Kennedy dissenting) (added knowledge of infringement element in claim for induced patent infringement); </p>
  
  <p><em>Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership</em> (2011) (unanimous) (presumption of validity of patent continues to apply during patent
  re-examination process conducted by PTO); </p>
  
  <p><em>Bilski v. Kappos</em> (2009) (unanimous to reverse, complicated holding as to extent of new law)(limiting software patents); </p>
  
  <p><em>Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.</em> (2008) (unanimous) (disavows Federal Circuit doctrines allowing patent holders to limit
  use of patented device after a first sale); </p>
  
  <p><em>KSR International v. Teleflex</em> (2007) (unanimous) (expanding obviousness defense); </p>
  
  <p><em>MedImmune v. Genentech</em> (2007) (8-1, Thomas dissenting) (allows for contests of patent validity without risking liability by infringing
  patent prior to legal ruling on question); </p>
  
  <p><em>Microsoft v. AT&amp;T</em> (2007) (7-1, Roberts dissenting) (U.S. patents laws don't have extraterritorial application); </p>
  
  <p><em>eBay Inc. v. MercExchange</em>, L.L.C. (2006) (unanimous) (sets higher standard for obtaining injunctions once infringement is established); </p>
  
  <p><em>Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.</em> (2005) (unanimous) (exemption from patent infringement applies to use of patented drugs
  for narrow purposes of research associated with FDA drug approval
  process).*</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Intellectual property issues have not been a partisan or ideological issue on the U.S. at any time in recent memory, and have not been a signature issue of any one justice relative to the other justices. Dissents in IP cases, where they have occurred have tended to be related to non-IP aspects of the cases.</p>

united-states copyright intellectual-property us-supreme-court court-records