Sentences with phrase «made under the patent»

The number of applications made under the Patent Co-operation Treaty has risen by 19 %, from nearly 12,000 in 2011 to more than 14,000 in 2012.

Not exact matches

These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the unfavorable outcome of litigation, including so - called «Paragraph IV» litigation and other patent litigation, related to any of our products or products using our proprietary technologies, which may lead to competition from generic drug manufacturers; data from clinical trials may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways than we interpret it; the FDA may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies or components of our filings for our products, including our clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies and, for ALKS 5461, evidence of efficacy and adequacy of bridging to buprenorphine; clinical development activities may not be completed on time or at all; the results of our clinical development activities may not be positive, or predictive of real - world results or of results in subsequent clinical trials; regulatory submissions may not occur or be submitted in a timely manner; the company and its licensees may not be able to continue to successfully commercialize their products; there may be a reduction in payment rate or reimbursement for the company's products or an increase in the company's financial obligations to governmental payers; the FDA or regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may make adverse decisions regarding the company's products; the company's products may prove difficult to manufacture, be precluded from commercialization by the proprietary rights of third parties, or have unintended side effects, adverse reactions or incidents of misuse; and those risks and uncertainties described under the heading «Risk Factors» in the company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10 - K and in subsequent filings made by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC»), which are available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

Slavitt said EpiPen has patent protection, has no Food and Drug Administration - approved equivalents, and was approved by that agency under a «new drug application,» all of which make it a brand - name drug.

Revlimid is still early in its life and fueling growth, with sales up 21 % in Q4, multiple trials for new indications under way, and patents that extend to 2024 in Europe and 2027 in the U.S. Otezla made a comeback in Q4, with sales up 20 % from Q3 and up 22 % year over year.

They argued that rejecting the university's claims could undermine 3 decades» worth of patents under the U.S. Bayh - Dole Act, the 1980 law that gives universities and other institutions the right to exploit government - funded discoveries made by their staff.

Over a dozen patent filings on SMR - 160 have been made with many more innovations under active development.

*** The «As is» Clause under this disclaimer is hereby agreed, that the Seller (s) and Purchaser (s) agree that the Purchaser (s) will purchase the used Equipment «As Is», with any and all latent and patent defects, that there is no warranty made or implied by the Seller (s).

But he's also a highly respected inventor with a multitude of patents under his belt, meaning we should pay attention when he makes a move like this.

Amazon has not made any public comments yet, but its trademark filings have confirmed that the company did indeed file the Kindle Fire and Amazon Silk browser with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the name Seesaw LLC, not Amazon.

that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party, or Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships;

«(ii)[The Patent Act is amended to] provide further regulation - making authority in subsection 55.2 (4) to permit the replacement of the current summary proceedings in patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity» [emphasis Patent Act is amended to] provide further regulation - making authority in subsection 55.2 (4) to permit the replacement of the current summary proceedings in patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity» [emphasis patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity» [emphasis patent infringement and validity» [emphasis added]

In conclusion the FCA upheld the Judge's conclusion that the patent claims fail the requirement for product specificity because they do not make specific reference to the medicinal ingredient rilpirivine, but only the broad class of compounds, but the FCA did so under section 4 (2)(a) rather than 4 (2)(b).

In Pason Systems Corp. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2006 FC 753, the Court allowed a judicial review of a correction made under this section, including on the basis that changes (replacing «increases» with «decreases», among other changes) were not «clerical».

In Canada, under s. 48 (1) of the Patent Act, a patentee can disclaim portions of an issued patent if «by mistake, accident or inadvertence, and without any willful intent to defraud or mislead the public,» the patentee has «made a specification too broad, claiming more than that of which the patentee... was the inventor.&Patent Act, a patentee can disclaim portions of an issued patent if «by mistake, accident or inadvertence, and without any willful intent to defraud or mislead the public,» the patentee has «made a specification too broad, claiming more than that of which the patentee... was the inventor.&patent if «by mistake, accident or inadvertence, and without any willful intent to defraud or mislead the public,» the patentee has «made a specification too broad, claiming more than that of which the patentee... was the inventor.»

«Where it appears to the court... that the employee has made an invention belonging to the employer for which a patent has been granted, that the patent is (having regard among other things to the size and nature of the employer's undertaking) of outstanding benefit to the employer and that by reason of those facts it is just that the employee should be awarded compensation to the paid the employer, the court... may award him such compensation of an amount determined under s 41 below.»

The promise doctrine was developed through the Federal Courts» jurisprudence; under it, a judge reviewed a patent as a whole to identify any «promises» made in it, then assessed whether those promises had been met in order to satisfy the utility requirement of the patent under the Patenpatent as a whole to identify any «promises» made in it, then assessed whether those promises had been met in order to satisfy the utility requirement of the patent under the Patenpatent under the PatentPatent Act.

Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach any other remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions of this title, but he shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.

Apple argued that the claims should be construed in light of statements Aylus made in its preliminary response to the Patent Office, and under Apple's proposed construction the accused AirPlay device did not infringe.

Licensing Termination Provisions for Under - performing License Agreements After securing a patent on an invention and you are making money, another company may want to use the patented technology in their product or service.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty concerned the patenting of GMOs and found that Congress intended for «anything under the sun that is made by man» to be patentable.

8.11.1 This direction applies to any appeal direct from the High Court under sections 12 and 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, from an order for the revocation of a patent made under section 32 or section 61 of the Patents Act 1949 or under section 72 of the Patents Act 1977.

Bob has years of experience working with foreign patent counsel the world over prosecuting patent applications in foreign countries for U.S. clients as well as prosecuting patent applications in the U.S. made in foreign countries, based on International Applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or priority filings under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propatent counsel the world over prosecuting patent applications in foreign countries for U.S. clients as well as prosecuting patent applications in the U.S. made in foreign countries, based on International Applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or priority filings under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propatent applications in foreign countries for U.S. clients as well as prosecuting patent applications in the U.S. made in foreign countries, based on International Applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or priority filings under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propatent applications in the U.S. made in foreign countries, based on International Applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or priority filings under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial ProPatent Cooperation Treaty or priority filings under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

Myriad (the patentee) argues that it should be able to patent «anything under the sun that is made by man» and that its work in isolating the human gene is a composition that is the «product of human ingenuity».

«The Court has been critical of situations where multiple proceedings have been taken in respect of the same patent under the NOC Regulations where a previous determination has been made as to the justification of allegations as to infringement and / or validity.

That on 23 May, 1609, James I, King of England, by his letters patent of that date, under the great seal of England, did erect, form, and establish Robert, Earl of Salisbury, and others, his associates, in the letters patent named and their successors into a body corporate and politic by the name and style of «The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in Virginia,» with perpetual succession and power to make, have, and use a common seal, and did give, grant, and confirm unto this company, and their successors,

Because it is unknown whether design patent rights holders that make false or frivolous complaints could be held liable for such actions, it is strongly encouraged that design patent owners take care with making such complaints under the current system.

An important mention has to be made: not all patents end up under the hoods of the end products, and Apple might just be testing the waters here.

Under their leadership, improvements have been made to H.R. 1249 that promote a more balanced, higher quality patent system.

«The members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness and the thousands of businesses — large and small — under attack by patent trolls thank President Obama and his Administration for making patent reform a priPatent Fairness and the thousands of businesses — large and small — under attack by patent trolls thank President Obama and his Administration for making patent reform a pripatent trolls thank President Obama and his Administration for making patent reform a pripatent reform a priority.

In recent years, the USPTO has come under increasing scrutiny over the quality of its patent examinations.1 The growing push for reform of the patent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent examinations.1 The growing push for reform of the patent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dPatent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public domain.

In these rulings — Berkheimer v. HP [PDF] and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software [PDF]-- the court suggests that the decision under Alice, about what makes an invention patent eligible, is a heavily factual inquiry.

Under the Innovation Act, venue for patent litigation would be limited to districts where it makes sense; for example, where the defendant's principle place of business is, or where the patent owner has a working, manufacturing facility.

The report, which was required under the America Invents Act, makes a thorough review of the consequences of patent litigation by patent trolls (it prefers the term PME).

EFF also urges the Patent Office to make sure that all pending applications (even those at the point of issuing) are reviewed under Alice.

User Content that may infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual or proprietary right of another person or party, or any User Content that you do not have a right to make available under contractual or fiduciary relationships.