SpicyIP

OCTOBER 30, 2023

Putting an end to a 24 year old patent infringement suit, the Delhi High Court has directed Maharaja Appliances Ltd. Background The dispute started off as a heated battle between the parties over the plaintiff’s ‘Liquid Heating Vessels’ patent, which the plaintiff claimed was used by the defendant in its electric kettles.

Patent Infringement 59

Patent Infringement Patent Art Invention 59

Patently-O

JANUARY 11, 2022

Teleflex (2007). The Supreme Court explained that a collection of known elements cannot be patented unless “the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts” — something that is usually not the case in mechanics. ” Great Atlantic & Pac. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 147 (1950). The Fair v.

Patent 131

Patent Invention Patent Infringement Art 131

Patently-O

FEBRUARY 24, 2022

Qualcomm had previously sued Apple for patent infringement, and Apple responded with a set of inter partes review petitions. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. The settlement also included a license to thousands of Qualcomm patents.

Patent Law 95

Patent Law Law Patent Litigation 95

Patently-O

FEBRUARY 8, 2022

118, 124 (2007). The covenant included both in court litigation and also validity challenges before the USPTO. law relating to patent infringement or invalidity, and filed within two (2) years of the end of the Covenant Term, shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Contracts 61

Contracts Intellectual Property Patent IP 61

Patently-O

MARCH 18, 2024

The district court agreed, finding their contributions were significant to the conception of the claimed invention. Under § 256, correcting inventorship requires comparing the alleged co-inventor’s contributions against the invention as claimed. Here, the acts associated with co-inventorship occurred back in 2007.

Patent 59

Patent Inventor Patent Infringement Designs 59

LexBlog IP

JANUARY 5, 2022

994 (2020) , a decision holding that the sovereign immunity of individual states prevented a copyright holder from recovering damages for infringement, I was a bit disheartened. 92, 96 (1876) (“A patent for an invention is as much property as a patent for land. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. Wright , 94 U.S. ”); James v.

Intellectual Property 52

Intellectual Property Government Invention Copyright 52