Sentences with phrase «with utility patents»

Even though many patent professionals refers to design patents as «picture patents,» potential patentees should be aware that design patents can provide overlapping protection if used in tandem with utility patents.

Not exact matches

Speak with an attorney and decide whether the need for patent protection justifies the expense (utility patents typically run $ 5,000 to $ 10,000).

Both the category winner for Process / Assembly / Enabling Technologies and the Grand Award winner, the IP on the ’12 Ford Escape and Kuga cross / utility vehicles is the largest automotive part molded using the patented MuCell injection - molding process and the first IP formed with the process.

Just as Eli Lilly unfortunately found in atomoxetine, it is very difficult to switch from an unsuccessful argument for actual utility to sound prediction — because one is left with only the disclosure of the patent (and not the extensive tests relied on for actual secret utility).

The United States urges Canada to engage meaningfully with affected stakeholders and the United States on patent utility issues.»

Although finding a compound patent valid based on actual utility after construing a low Promise, Mr. Justice Rennie recognized (in obiter) there would be problems with a sound prediction of any higher Promise, and referred to the «common view» of the disclosure requirement of AZT as follows:

«This decision goes a long way toward realigning Canada's law on patent utility with other major industrialized nations.»

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.

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.

The development took place over decades, beginning with the Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Monsanto Company v Commissioner of Patents, which articulated the principle of sound prediction and prohibited post-filing evidence, and by subsequent decisions over the next 23 years, including the Supreme Court's articulation of the utility test in Consolboard Inc v MacMillan Bloedel (Sask) Ltd, and a later decision in Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, which clarified the disclosure requirement.

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.

Contrary to Richard Gold's assertion, the Canadian promise of the patent doctrine, the requirement to disclose the factual basis for sound prediction in the patent, and the prohibition on using post-filing evidence to establish utility, are not in line with US, UK and EPO jurisprudence, at least: see my articles Must the Factual Basis for Sound Prediction Be Disclosed in the Ppatent doctrine, the requirement to disclose the factual basis for sound prediction in the patent, and the prohibition on using post-filing evidence to establish utility, are not in line with US, UK and EPO jurisprudence, at least: see my articles Must the Factual Basis for Sound Prediction Be Disclosed in the Ppatent, and the prohibition on using post-filing evidence to establish utility, are not in line with US, UK and EPO jurisprudence, at least: see my articles Must the Factual Basis for Sound Prediction Be Disclosed in the PatentPatent?

Put another way, how can one reconcile the claims construction analysis with the promise doctrine when it comes to determining the utility of the patent?

The company has patented the technology around the tests themselves, including both design and utility patents, with several others still pending.

In that report we added a few links to our previous Patently Mobile reports on Samsung's utility and design patents that described a new round watch interface along with an all - new rotatable ring or watch bezel controller which was confirmed today by Samsung's release of their new Gear SDK.

In total our report covers four granted patents with two of them being design patents and two of them being utility patents.

While it's always tempting for the Apple side of the competiton to say that Samsung has tried to copy something of Apple's such as the Apple Watch's Digital Crown in some way, the fact is that the utility and design patents behind this new design surfaced back in June and July 2014, well ahead of Apple's revelations of the Apple Watch with its Digital Crown.

Samsung was granted three design wins for hand - held medical devices and a most fascinating utility patent for an MRI unit that provides patients with a little entertainment while being in the MRI's confined space.

With over 300 acres available for development, be a part of an innovation and discovery community that ranks 12th in the world in utility patents awarded.