2014 Designs Patent Infringement Patent Law 
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
20-891 (CVSG requested May 3, 2021); Res Judicata and the Patent-Specific Kessler Doctrine : PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. 20-1394 (CVSG requested October 4, 2021); Undermining Jury Decisions : Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. The fourth and final case with a pending CVSG is Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. ,
Garrigues Blog
JANUARY 12, 2022
In addition, a third party’s use of an invention before its registration by another is also relevant to assess patent infringement. The right of prior use is set forth in article 63 of the current Patents Law of 2015, the wording of which is practically identical to that of article 54 of the earlier Patents Law of 1986.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
DECEMBER 15, 2023
Dastar explicitly stated that the Lanham Act “does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device” and that the Act’s “common law foundations. were not designed to protect originality or creativity.” “Yet 6:12-CV-499, 2014 WL 11848751, (E.D. 6:12-CV-499, 2014 WL 11829325 (E.D.
Patently-O
JULY 8, 2022
David Tropp sued Travel Sentry for patent infringement back in 2006. That was the same year that I first taught a patent law class. Back then, eligibility was almost an unknown concept in patent litigation. 208 (2014). 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. Tropp Petition.
The IP Law Blog
MAY 7, 2021
As way of background, in patent infringement cases, Courts are authorized to award “reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party” in “exceptional cases.” Under the Federal Circuit’s holding in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. , ” . .”
Patently-O
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
FRAND licensing commitments are designed to alleviate the risk that SEP holders will prevent broad adoption of a standard by asserting their patents against manufacturers of standardized products. Ericsson and HTC entered into three such licensing agreements in 2003, 2008 and 2014. 2014), Microsoft v. Apportionment.
LexBlog IP
AUGUST 31, 2021
Ericsson and HTC had entered cross-license agreements in 2003, 2008 and 2014. Under the 2014 license agreement, HTC paid Ericsson a lump sum of $75 million regardless of HTC’s phone sales, which effectively was $2.50 In 2016, just before the 2014 license expired, HTC and Ericsson began negotiating renewal of the license. .”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
95 
Let's personalize your content