• Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (PDF)


• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (PDF)

Links:

• Bloomberg "Top U.S. Court Clears Way for More Patent Challenges"


• Groklaw "2 Major Patent Rulings from the US Supreme Court"


• Slashdot "Supreme Court Weakens Patents"


• Patently-O "Supreme Court Retracts Patent Protection"


• Against Monopoly "Big Supreme Court Ruling on Patents"
• SCOTUS blog has many analysis:
  
  
  
  • Some thoughts about KSR v. Teleflex: The "Marketplace" Test for Obviousness
  
  
  • KSR v. Teleflex: Workmanlike, Yet Frustrating
  
  
  • Analysis of Supreme Court patent law decision in KSR v. Teleflex, No. 04-1350
  
  
  • KSR: An ovemphasis of the importance of published articles?
  
  
  • Court rules on two patent cases, and on high-speed chase
  
  
  • Supreme Court Retracts Patent Protection

Extracts  KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. :

(page 24) And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.

Extracts Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T :

(pages 9 and 10) Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match S271(f)'s categorization: "components" amenable to "combination" ...

(page 11) The distinctions advanced by AT&T do not persuade us to characterize software, uncoupled from a medium, as a combinable component. Blueprints too, or any design information for that matter, can be independently developed, bought and sold. If the point of AT&T's argument is that we do not see blueprints lining stores' shelves, the same observation may be made about software in the abstract: what retailers sell and consumers buy, are copies of software.