Showing 8101 - 8110 of 8148 for "Patent litigation" with applied filters
Filters:
01 June 2018 by Klaus Breitenstein
In recent ex-parte appeal proceedings (decision 14 W (pat) 10/16 of January 23 2018), the German Federal Patent Court (GFPC) contributed to the interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (the Regulation).
01 June 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has an objective to provide quick and cost-effective IP litigation. It has proved to be popular.
01 June 2018 by Karen Artz Ash
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in B&B Hardware, Inc v Hargis Industries, Inc provided that courts were obligated to give preclusive effect to decisions made by the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) if the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met
01 June 2018 by Henri van Kalkeren
Cialis® is a pharmaceutical product for the treatment of erectile dysfunction developed by Lilly ICOS, a joint venture of ICOS Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.
01 June 2018 by Mark Davis
Trade mark owners should feel encouraged by the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision to enforce an agreement to prevent grey marketing (or parallel importing) in Mars Canada Inc v Bemco Cash & Carry Inc.
In 2008, a legislator’s wig was ripped off at the Control Yuan of Taiwan, an incident which was recorded by photography by a number of reporters at the scene.
01 June 2018 by Editha Hechanova
The IP Code of the Philippines does not expressly state that patented products must bear patent markings which serve to notify the public and competitors that products are patented. However, Section 80 of the IP Code provides that “damages cannot be recovered for acts of infringement committed before the infringer knew, or had reasonable grounds to know of the patent.
The Indian Patent Office vide order dated November 8 2017 has rejected patent application 6647/DELNP/2007 for lack of inventive step and for non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act.
Some chemical products alter with the passing of time. When a product does not fall within the scope of claims at the time of manufacturing but falls within the scope of the claims after the passing of time after manufacturing, is it correct to conclude that such a product falls within the technical scope of a patented invention?
A common dilemma for inventors and applicants before the European Patent Office is whether an invention is sufficiently mature for a patent application to be filed.
