Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 200 (1980):

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

BBstyle in box

Another boxed (1px) text (works only for 1 line of text):
The citations in this Article are written in Bluebook
style. Please see the Talk page for this Article. Using BB!

Same with 2px box border:
The citations in this Article are written in Bluebook
style. Please see the Talk page for this Article. Using BB!

1. Use THINSPACE or HAIRSP to separate end of single quote within double quote

So, for thin, use &#8201+; or &#8239+;. Thus: He said, "When you go in, you must say 'hello.' " (note thin space separating ' and ".

8239 is narrower than 8201--use that one--and remember the ;
Examples of separating xx and another xx:
xx xx                  "& thin space ;" (HTML thin space) works, as does Unicode 8239
xx xx       "& hair space ;" (HTML hair space) does not work!)
xx xx       but Unicode works for hair space

Make Template:3rq so that {{3rq}} will produce  . which looks like this: ' " -- for end of quote within quote (rsquo) followed by hairsp followed by (rdquo).
Now for the same thing with a thinsp:

8201 and 8202 and 8239:
He said, "That's 'it' "   ' " 8201 thin
He said, "That's 'it' "   ' " 8202 hair
He said, "That's 'it' "   ' " 8239 (narrow NB)
He said. "That's 'it' "    ' " - space bar
He said, "That's 'it'​"  '​" 8203 (zero-width)
He said, "That's 'it'"  '​" 8303 (zero-width)

For use at end of sentence with period before rdquo, we just insert a period before using the template. Thus: He said, "That's 'it. 

2. Use ZWSP to separate italic from genitive 's - to prevent 's preceded by ital from becoming bold, 3x'

Word-Joiner ⁠ represented by no visible character, it prohibits a line break at its position. It is like " NBSP" but with no space:

Thus, compare ... as (1) .⁠.⁠.[ZWSP] with (2) . . .[NBSP] Neither one will break at end of line. 8303 is same as 8288

Examples:

Philadelphia National Bank​'s 30% rule - 8203

Philadelphia National Bank's 30% rule - 8303

Philadelphia National Bank⁠'s 30% rule - 8288

Philadelphia National Bank 's 30% rule - 8239

Now challenge with end of line:

 Philadelphia      National  Bank's 30% rule - 8303

 Philadelphia      National  Bank⁠'s 30% rule - 8288

But see 8239: Philadelphia       National Bank 's 30% rule - 8239 - same but bigger sp bef '

But see 8239: Philadelphia        National Bank 's 30% rule - 8239 - same but bigger sp bef '

{{PD-US-patent}}

In general, the contents of United States patents are in the public domain in the US.[1] In specific cases, patent applicants and holders may claim copyright in portions of those documents. In those specific cases, applicants are required to identify the portions that are protected under copyright, and are additionally required to state the following within the body of the application and patent: [2][3][4](archived) A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever. The original patent should be checked for the presence of such language before an assumption is made that the contents are in the public domain. This template can be replaced by {{PD-US-patent-no notice}} in such cases. PD Public domain false false

2{ + Non-free web screenshot|image has rationale=yes + 2}

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the owner of the website. It may also contain trademarked logos, which are likely not affiliated with Wikipedia. It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

{{PD-Art}}

This image is in the public domain because under the Copyright law of the United States, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection). PD Public domain false false

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1930 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. PD-US Public domain in the United States //en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:PraeceptorIP/sandbox

Used for "derivative work" article

Used for "transformativeness" article

Text of United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. is available from: Findlaw Justia

List of CJ's

Software patent case law
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases
Federal Trade Commission litigation

United States Supreme Court cases
United States patent case law
2014 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court

• Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth Courts (1789–1800)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court (1801–35)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Taney Court (1836–64)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Chase Court (1864–73)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Waite Court (1874–88)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court (1888–1910)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the White Court (1910–21)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court (1921–30)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court (1930–41)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court (1941–46)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court (1946–53)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court (1953–69)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court (1969–86)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
• United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court (2005–present)

Software patent case law
United States patent law
United States misuse law
United States antitrust law

[[Category:United States patent case law]] [[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] [[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]] [[Category:2014 in United States case law]] [[Category:Software patent case law]] [[Category:United States patent law]] [[Category:United States misuse law]] [[Category:United States antitrust law]] [[Category:United States copyright law]] [[Category:Intellectual property law]] [[Category:United States federal preemption law]]

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.