{"argument_date":"2000-11-29T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2000-11-29T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","paragraphs":["John Roberts argued the design features a dual-spring mechanism.","He stated this mechanism allows the stand to resist wind.","The Chief Justice concluded the oral argument session."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 13-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 53, lines 13-15"}]}],"caption":"TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.602532Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The parties dispute whether a specific sign stand mechanism meets patent law requirements.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2000-11-29T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-1571.html","primary_docket":"99-1571","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:20:13.955012Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case involves a dispute over a sign stand design."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2000."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case seeks a finding that the design is patentable.","the opposing side seeks a finding that the design is not patentable."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues the dual-spring design resists wind effectively.","the opposing side argues the design lacks necessary patentable novelty."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to begin his argument."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 13-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 53, lines 13-15"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["The outcome defines the scope of patent protection for mechanical sign stands."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 13-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 53, lines 13-15"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-1571-traffix-devices-inc-v-marketing-displays-inc","term":"2000","title":"Does a dual-spring sign stand design qualify for patent protection?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 17-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 49-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-1571.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-23"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}