October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1571
Does a dual-spring sign stand design qualify for patent protection?
The parties dispute whether a specific sign stand mechanism meets patent law requirements.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 13-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case involves a dispute over a sign stand design.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the dual-spring design resists wind effectively.
the opposing side argues the design lacks necessary patentable novelty.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to begin his argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 13-15
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of patent protection for mechanical sign stands.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 13-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.