Sentences with phrase «claims during prosecution»

The solution to the problem of patent trolls is as simple as it is difficult to implement; more rigorous examination of patent applications, clarification and limitations of claims during prosecution, and increased use by the courts themselves (rather than the parties in litigation) of expert witnesses who can inform the court of the state of the art, and what implied limitations of the original invention should be considered by the court.

Novartis was able to substantially amend its claims during prosecution (and thereby «fix» its description given the significance of narrower claims in its issued patent).

Not exact matches

Bloomberg backed up the prosecution's claims during a more than two - hour session on the witness stand.

Emails released by the Crown Prosecution Service now the trial is over show Pryce claimed to have confided about the speeding tickets to Miriam González Duránte, Clegg's wife, and to Cable and his wife during a dinner.

During closing arguments, lawyer Marc Agnifilo said star prosecution witness Harendra Singh — who also claims to have bribed former Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano — «is like a politician buff.

The burden of proof will shift to employers to demonstrate that any independent contractors they do business with are not in fact employees under the ESA, if, during the course of an employment standards officer's investigation or inspection or in any proceeding under the ESA, other than a prosecution, an employer or alleged employer claims that a person is not an employee.

Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for Ford during an inter partes review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board («PTAB») that found an express disclaimer in the prosecution history of the patent - in - suit.

There, [the patentee] would likely not have been allowed to argue a claim construction that attempts to recapture ground conceded during prosecution of the patent application to avoid prior art.

Also in the last couple of years, Justice Mosley, in NOV Downhole Eurasia Limited v. TLL Oil Field Consulting, 2014 FC 889, considered whether a pleading ought to be struck that referred to the file history to defend against infringement arguing that a feature added during prosecution and appearing in each of the claims did not exist in their device.

In Pollard v. Scientific Games, 2016 FC 883, a decision released in July after a trial in which I was involved, Justice Locke had to deal with this issue directly when the prosecution history pointed to one meaning for the word «continuous» in the patent claim but the patent owner was arguing a different meaning during the trial.

His experience in patent prosecution has helped him better understand the process of obtaining a patent, including analyzing file histories, which has been invaluable to him during litigation, especially in formulating claim construction and invalidity positions.

The court noted that, «[o] ver time, prosecution disclaimer has become a fundamental precept in our claim construction jurisprudence, which promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.»

In addition, although the Federal Circuit has not addressed the broader issue, patent owners should expect that short of actual disclaimer, all statements made during AIA post grant proceedings, including statements in expert reports, will be considered «intrinsic» evidence that a district court may consider, along with the patent specification and prosecution history, in conducting claim construction.

Because an IPR proceeding involves reexamination of an earlier administrative grant of a patent, it follows that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be considered during claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer.

DNA testing was also performed on the blood on the cloth that the prosecution claimed was deposited during a Satanic animal sacrifice.

The prosecution claimed that the blood on the cloth was deposited during a ritual animal sacrifice and the glass was a «chalice» from which Hardin drank the blood of the animals he sacrificed for Satan.

Examples of such cases are Chandler v Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)(liability of non-employer for exposure to asbestos), Kynixa Ltd v Hynes and others [2008] EWHC 1495 (QB)(claims arising from alleged breaches of restrictive covenants in employment contracts), Romantiek BVBA v Simms [2008] EWHC 3099 (QB) a claim alleging that a public official had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office when discharging a licensing function, OOO and others v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [20011] EWHC 1246 (QB)(claims by young foreign females that they had been trafficked into the UK by foreign nationals for the purpose of slavery and that officers of the Metropolitan Police Force breached their human rights in failing to investigate their complaints adequately or at all) and Mouncher and others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB)(claims by retired and serving police officers for false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution against South Wales Police arising from an investigation by officers of that force into alleged criminal conduct on the part of the claimants during the course of an investigation into a notorious murder in South Wales.

The messages were sent during the firm's representation of the client in the underlying matter - the prosecution of the client's employment related claims under a separation agreement the firm had helped negotiate.