Sentences with phrase «case under the patent»

The Federal Circuit agreed both that this was an exceptional case under the Patent Act and that Eon - Net was subject to sanctions under Rule 11.

Not exact matches

E.V.: Under the old system, TTOs encouraged their academic scientists to maintain good records of their conception and reduction - to - practice of an invention, in case a patent or patent application was pulled into a patent interference used to determine who invented it first.

The listing criteria require that to be eligible for listing the patent must contain, under section 4 (2)(a), «a claim for the medicinal ingredient» or under section 4 (2)(b) «a claim for the formulation that contains the medicinal ingredient», in either case where the medicinal agreement or formulation had been approved through the issuance of an NOC in respect of the Submission.

Work highlights Appeared in the Supreme Court for Life Technologies to reverse a Federal Circuit decision in a patent infringement case, successfully arguing that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent patented invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under the Patenpatent infringement case, successfully arguing that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent patented invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under the PatentPatent Act.

The Federal Circuit, to which Apple appealed certain parts of the ruling earlier this month, is the circuit for all cases arising under U.S. patent law, while contract cases brought in the Western District of Wisconsin would usually be appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

The Court noted that although enhanced damage awards are discretionary, they must be consistent with a pattern laid out in over 180 years of case law under the Patent Act and earlier statutes.

The way litigation in general works in the U.S. (such as the «American Rule» of no recovery of legal fees except under narrow circumstances) creates some opportunities for trolls, but with respect to the two concerns of this coalition of tech companies over the UPC, the German framework — which, again, would affect the whole of Europe based on the proposed rules of procedure — has terrible shortcomings in areas in which defendants in U.S. patent cases are actually in better shape.

2016): attorney's fees under the Lanham Act's «exceptional» language guided by the same factors articulated in SCOTUS» Octane Fitness / Highmark decisions relating to patent cases.

Acted for Catnic Components in House of Lords case establishing the test for evaluation of patent infringement (the Diplock purposive construction test) still applicable under the new law / EPC Article 69 and Protocol; EPC 2000

However, according to the article, changes to patent law, such as inter partes review, created under the America Invents Act are helping expedite some IP cases that would otherwise have been delayed due to vacancies.

Section 1338 (a) requires federal courts to hear cases involving claims for relief under the Patent Act, including infringement and declaratory judgment actions.

ION opposed the petition largely on the grounds that the case was a poor vehicle for the Court to consider extraterritorial damages under § 271 (f) because of other issues in the case, including that the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board subsequently found several claims in WesternGeco's patent to be unpatentable in an inter partes review procePatent Trial and Appeal Board subsequently found several claims in WesternGeco's patent to be unpatentable in an inter partes review procepatent to be unpatentable in an inter partes review proceeding.

General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016 - 01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) A familiar strategy in inter partes («IPR») review proceedings under the America Invents Act («AIA») is for petitioners to file multiple petitions challenging claims in an issued patent, including «follow - on» petitions filed after the initial petition for...

In particular, this newly - issued decision held that a «regular and established place of business» under 28 USC 1400 (b) for patent cases must include these three components:

The decision to hear a case that reviews whether a patent owner can recover profits lost outside of the U.S. due to infringement under 271 (f) could have significant consequences on damages awards.

Under that claim construction, the patent isn't nearly as valuable as Apple is claiming in the California Samsung case.

While this decision does not affect design patent damages based on the patent owner's lost profits or a reasonable royalty, it is likely to limit the desirability of seeking the infringer's profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 in some cases, primarily those involving designs on portions of products.

Under the prior VE Holding decision, patent owners opted to file infringement cases in favorable districts, with half of all patent infringement actions each year being filed in just two courts: the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.

In the case of Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lily and Company, 2015 ONCA 305, Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly Canada Inc. («Lilly») had used the process available under the regulatory scheme of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR / 93 -133, in order to keep Apotex's generic counterpart to Strattera (a drug used in the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) off the market.

In a case at odds with long - standing assumptions about the legal status of invalid patents, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 26, 2015 that a defendant's good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b).

Although those cases indicated that only a court could invalidate an issued patent, the Court noted that the decisions described the patent system under the Patent Act of 1870, which did not contain a mechanism for post-grant review of an issued ppatent, the Court noted that the decisions described the patent system under the Patent Act of 1870, which did not contain a mechanism for post-grant review of an issued ppatent system under the Patent Act of 1870, which did not contain a mechanism for post-grant review of an issued pPatent Act of 1870, which did not contain a mechanism for post-grant review of an issued patentpatent.

1749, 1756, 1758 (2014), defining the flexibility given district judges to decide whether a patent case is exceptional for purposes of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

In the dual cases of Octane Fitness / Highmark, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a very flexible «under the circumstances» test for awarding attorney's fees under a patent - fee shifting statute for «exceptional» cases.

Parties challenging patents under the post-issuance review proceedings authorized by the America Invents Act have long worried about estoppel in later district court cases if they lose before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Since joining JAMS, Judge Roberts has been appointed as a discovery master by federal and state courts to supervise discovery and review privileged documents in complex commercial, patent, and product liability cases, as an election monitor for unions under court supervision, as a consultant to monitor a four - year consent decree in an EEOC pattern and practice case against a major restaurant chain, and as a trustee for a 36 - story commercial retail and office building on Fifth Avenue

The plaintiff in the challenge had been issued patents in the late 1970s based on an application from 1959, but on the eve of jury trial in 1982, the case had been continued pending a reexamination under the new statute.

London will hear cases relating to chemistry, including pharmaceuticals and the life sciences (patents classified under IPC classes A and C).

Successfully defended wearable technology company in patent infringement litigation, resulting in judgement of non-infringement and award of attorneys» fees based on finding that it was an «exceptional case» under 28 U.S.C. § 285.

Also, in general, keep in mind that with some very narrow exceptions (e.g. patent and copyright cases), every case that can be brought under federal law in federal court may be brought in state court as well.

Indeed, while district courts invalidated more than double the number of patents under § 101 in the second half of 2014 than in the entire previous year, those decisions represent a very small number of cases relative to the volume of litigation in the system.

Ken also has experience representing clients in intellectual property matters, including patent disputes, and has litigated a variety of cases under the Lanham Act and its state law corollaries.

The court unanimously * held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b)(the statute governing venue in patent suits), a domestic corporation «resides» only in its state of incorporation, consistent with its ruling in an earlier case, Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222 (1957).

So cases involving design patents constitute a small percentage of patent litigation compared to the number of cases involving only utility patents (historically, just under 10 % and declining to less than 5 % in 2012 and 2013).

In what is believed to be the first ruling on the scope of PALs» (patent attorney litigators) rights, Lewison J held that they are entitled to act where the case involves the broad area of «protecting inventions» — including royalties payable under agreements relating to the inventions.

Represented Under Armour in a district court case brought by adidas AG accusing Under Armour and its subsidiary of infringing 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.

That is, the trial bar is uninterested in letting the camel get his nose under the tent, so to speak, by heading down a slippery slope where introduction of fee - shifting in patent cases leads to fee - shifting in other areas of the law.

Thus, I could see a patent troll, who is hailed into state court, quickly filing a counter claim / suit and having the case removed to federal court, and then successfully using the Federal Circuit's definition of objective recklessness (which also covers frivolous suits and attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. 285) to avoid any state law claims.

Given the potential for wasted time, effort, and money, the defendants very shortly thereafter filed a motion for a stay of the case while the court decided the issue of whether the asserted patent claims are invalid under Alice.