Sentences with phrase «where patent owners»

A lowering of the standard for proving that patent cases are exceptional, where the patent owner has lost, would clearly cause patent owners (including trolls), to not only think twice but to think deeply before filing a lawsuit.

The VENUE Act would require the plaintiff in a patent suit to file in a district where it makes sense — for example, where the defendant's principle place of business is; where the patent owner has a working manufacturing facility; or where the inventors of the patent live.

We don't think so, especially where a patent owner may be suing multiple people based on the same claim.

Under H.R. 4829, the ITC would only look at patent disputes where the patent owner actually helped develop the product in the United States.

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.

Not exact matches

In a fraught environment where small businesses owners are extremely guarded about their intellectual property — in particular their patents — wizard inventor Elon Musk caused quite a stir on Tuesday at the electric car company's shareholder meeting in Mountain View, California.

On May 22, the justices unanimously ruled that patent owners can only bring patent infringement lawsuits in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business.

«The things in these current proposals don't fit squarely or neatly within the congressional authority and they go way beyond where I think anyone should want Congress to tread,» O'Malley said at the conference, hosted by the advocacy group Innovation Alliance, which represents the interests of patent owners.

As a result, a patent owner has two venue options for defendants that are domestic corporations: It may file the infringement action in the defendant's state of incorporation, or in a judicial district where the defendant allegedly has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

Moreover, on the petitioner side where an IPR may be barred for a variety of reasons, the use of the ex parte reexam may still apply pressure to the patent owner.

Howard noted that one reason why trademark litigation has remained so consistent is that, unlike patent litigation where a patent holder can observe infringement for some time without bringing suit, trademark holders have a greater impetus to file suit because they have a duty to preserve the mark; unchallenged infringement of a trademark can actually hurt a plaintiff in court in a way that it doesn't affect patent owners.

The problem is infringers, and it began by financially empowered corporations who, rather than settle or license what is rightfully owner by a patent holder, throw endless dollars at attorneys in order to ultimately drain inventors to where they can not protect the IP rights endowed to them.

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that patent owners can sue corporate defendants only in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the court ruled that patent owners can sue corporate defendants only in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

That's very frustrating, especially with Samsung's latest design patent where something is purposely shown and yet we're left completely in the dark as to what functionality it could possibly bring to future owners.