Sentences with phrase «utility patent cases»

The Court's decision is consistent with the broader trend of apportioning damages in utility patent cases to the particular patented technology found to infringe.

Not exact matches

Crist has criticized Canadian «promise» case law for invalidating pharmaceutical patents for lack of utility despite the fact that the medicines at issue were commercially successful.

This is particularly relevant in the case of pharmaceutical inventions, because the requirement of utility means that the drug for which a patent is sought must achieve the result promised in the specification.

The German patent office will most likely treat the Federal Patent Court's opinion on the photo gallery patent as binding case law for the purposes of the utility model revocation proceedings; if not, Apple can always ask the Federal Patent Court to review the decision, and a panel presumably consisting of partly the same people would probably affirm the previous decision in the new copatent office will most likely treat the Federal Patent Court's opinion on the photo gallery patent as binding case law for the purposes of the utility model revocation proceedings; if not, Apple can always ask the Federal Patent Court to review the decision, and a panel presumably consisting of partly the same people would probably affirm the previous decision in the new coPatent Court's opinion on the photo gallery patent as binding case law for the purposes of the utility model revocation proceedings; if not, Apple can always ask the Federal Patent Court to review the decision, and a panel presumably consisting of partly the same people would probably affirm the previous decision in the new copatent as binding case law for the purposes of the utility model revocation proceedings; if not, Apple can always ask the Federal Patent Court to review the decision, and a panel presumably consisting of partly the same people would probably affirm the previous decision in the new coPatent Court to review the decision, and a panel presumably consisting of partly the same people would probably affirm the previous decision in the new context.

'' [The Supreme Court] has decided many utility - patent cases in recent terms, but has not reviewed a design - patent case in more than 120 years.

With more than 30 patent litigators, we have tried utility and design patent cases in well - known federal patent venues in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware, and in many other jurisdictions.

In the latest US case, the jury decided that some, but not all, Samsung products infringed Apple's utility and design patents.

The total damages amount in the first case ($ 929 million after two trials, but prior to the appeal, which Samsung filed last week) was $ 929 million, but the bulk of that was related to design patents and trade dress, i.e., intellectual property rights for which U.S. statutory law explicitly allows damages theories (disgorgement of infringer's profits) that are legally unavailable for utility (i.e., technical) patents.

Patent Prosecution (Acquisition) Cases — Successfully prosecuted and obtained hundreds of utility and design patent applications at the United Patent Prosecution (Acquisition) Cases — Successfully prosecuted and obtained hundreds of utility and design patent applications at the United patent applications at the United States

Case law has imposed a requirement that an invention's usefulness be demonstrated or soundly predicted at the time of application, rather than at some later point; though utility of the subject - matter is a requirement of patent validity, a patentee is not required to disclose the utility of the invention to fulfill the requirements of s. 2.

The Court unequivocally stated that there was no requirement to disclose in the patent the demonstration of the utility of the invention; but in this case, it was at the patentee's peril.

However, I can't see how the existence of other smartphone - related patents (utility patents as well as design patents) would not have probative value: the single strongest argument for a narrowly - defined article of manufacture (just the casing) simply is that there is so much more in and on a smartphone than just a very few, narrow designs.

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).

Excess Copyright Last Minute Discontinuance of Patent Case on «Promised Utility» in Supreme Court of Canada

Six years after the SCC considered the NOC case (finding Sanofi's patent not anticipated or obvious), the SCC will once again consider the validity of the same patent in an action (re-litigating issues of obviousness, and considering utility / Promise).

Although the SCC has recently granted leave in Astra's esomeprazole action [12], both parties have acknowledged in their leave materials that the disclosure requirement is not determinative in this case (as the lower court held there was no sound prediction of the promised utility relying on material in the patent as well as Astra's internal tests).