Sentences with phrase «utility patents against»

That may be about to change, however, as AppleInsider reports that Apple has added both the Samsung Galaxy S III and the Galaxy Note to a separate complaint that it filed this past February that asserted eight utility patents against 17 different Samsung products.

Not exact matches

Lilly claimed that the promise doctrine fundamentally changed Canada's utility requirement, exceeds patentability requirements of trading partners, contravenes Canada's international trade obligations and discriminates against pharmaceutical patents.

However, where the specification promises a specific result, utility will be measured against that promise, based on what is disclosed in the patent specification at the filing date.

This ruling is not thermonuclear on its own, but in its aftermath, we will not only see a lot of wrangling over a judgment as a matter of law to overrule the jury and over injunctive relief but there will also be, even more importantly, a push by Apple to enforce many more design patents and utility (hardware and software) patents against Samsung.

For example, if China was sued for violating a utility patent on the Humvee design and a U.S. federal court found that it was a commercial activity of a state owned company rather than an act of the Chinese military, per se, the U.S. court could enter a judgment against China and the patent owned could collect it by seizing U.S. Treasury bonds owned by China.

The Tribunal characterized the three elements of the promise doctrine as: (i) the identification of a «promise» in the patent disclosure, against which utility is measured; (ii) the prohibition on the use of post-filing evidence to prove utility; and (iii) the requirement for pre-filing evidence to support a sound prediction of utility to be included in the patent disclosure.

In Sanofi v Apotex 2013 FCA 186 (Plavix / clopidogrel)[5], the appellate court defined «The Promise» as «the standard against which the utility of the invention described in the patent is measured».

the Promise Utility doctrine discriminates against pharmaceutical patents; no pharmaceutical patents were invalidated for inutility until 2004; since then 23 pharmaceutical patents have been invalidated based on the doctrine

In turn, Eli Lilly brought an international arbitration against Canada under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA in 2012 because in «the mid-2000s, after the patents had been examined and granted, but prior to their invalidation by the courts, Canada's patent utility law underwent a dramatic transformation,» which arguably was inconsistent with Canada's obligations to protect patents under NAFTA.