1. Prosecution history estoppel prevents patent holders from claiming infringement on patent claims that were amended during the patent application process.
2. In Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., the Supreme Court ruled that while amendments create a presumption that the patent holder surrendered access to equivalents, this presumption can be overcome under certain conditions.
3. The Court placed the burden on the patent holder to show what equivalents were not surrendered during amendments, but left room for equivalents that were unforeseeable or bore a tangential relationship to the amendment.
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...QuickCostsCostsCompa
This document provides an overview of key issues relating to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) in personal injury claims. It discusses exceptions to QOCS protection including pre-action disclosure applications, fundamental dishonesty, multiple defendants, and discontinuance. It also addresses set off of costs orders and exemptions where a claim has no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process. The presentation provides practical tips for claimants' lawyers such as providing clients with warnings about costs risks and ensuring procedural compliance to avoid costs liability under QOCS exceptions.
Lawweb.in when court should not set aside arbitration awardLaw Web
When an Appellate Court deals with the 'Award' assailed in an 'Appeal' it is to bear in mind fully the salient factors:--
"(i) A Court of Law cannot substitute its own decision as if sitting in Appeal over the Award.
(ii) Ambit of interference that the 'Award' is limited.
(iii) A Court of Law is to look into whether there is any negation of the 'Principles of Natural Justice'.
(iv) A Court of Law can interfere only if there is an error on the face of the 'Award'.
(v) A Court of Law can interfere if an 'Arbitrator' had brushed aside/ignored the relevant clause and the terms of the agreement.
(vi) The Award is cemented on a proposition of Law which is erroneous.
(vii) An award could not be set aside just because the reasons are spelt out in brief.
(viii) Interpretation placed by the Arbitrator ought not be disturbed if it is plausible and not because a Court of Law would have come to a different conclusion.
(ix) No interference would be called for when an Arbitrator renders a finding on a particular question of Law when authorised by the concerned parties.
(x) A Court of Law should not disturb the 'Findings' of the Arbitrator when based on facts.
(xi) There must not be a reappreciation of the evidence by a Court of Law, in as much as the same was considered by an Arbitrator."
- See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/#sthash.RIhxrPsK.dpuf
The document discusses the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. The doctrine allows a court to find infringement even if the accused device does not literally infringe a patent claim, if it is equivalent to the claimed invention. It provides that an equivalent device performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. The doctrine balances protecting patent holders' inventions with providing clear notice of a patent's scope.
The document discusses the Roche v. Natco case, the first compulsory licensing application in India. It provides details of the arguments from both sides. Natco applied for a compulsory license to produce Roche's cancer drugs for export to Nepal. Roche argued it was entitled to be heard during consideration, but Natco said section 92A does not require this. The judge reserved the judgment.
Patents are widely regarded as a “crutial” instrument for intellectual property (IP) rights holders seeking to establish a unique market position for their patented products. Patents grant the owner exclusive rights to market their product, license their invention to third parties to recoup investments, and prevent competitors from infringing on their patent rights. Given the huge competitive advantages that the patent brings, it is not surprising that the occurrence of patent disputes is on the rise.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
1. Prosecution history estoppel prevents patent holders from claiming infringement on patent claims that were amended during the patent application process.
2. In Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., the Supreme Court ruled that while amendments create a presumption that the patent holder surrendered access to equivalents, this presumption can be overcome under certain conditions.
3. The Court placed the burden on the patent holder to show what equivalents were not surrendered during amendments, but left room for equivalents that were unforeseeable or bore a tangential relationship to the amendment.
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...QuickCostsCostsCompa
This document provides an overview of key issues relating to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) in personal injury claims. It discusses exceptions to QOCS protection including pre-action disclosure applications, fundamental dishonesty, multiple defendants, and discontinuance. It also addresses set off of costs orders and exemptions where a claim has no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process. The presentation provides practical tips for claimants' lawyers such as providing clients with warnings about costs risks and ensuring procedural compliance to avoid costs liability under QOCS exceptions.
Lawweb.in when court should not set aside arbitration awardLaw Web
When an Appellate Court deals with the 'Award' assailed in an 'Appeal' it is to bear in mind fully the salient factors:--
"(i) A Court of Law cannot substitute its own decision as if sitting in Appeal over the Award.
(ii) Ambit of interference that the 'Award' is limited.
(iii) A Court of Law is to look into whether there is any negation of the 'Principles of Natural Justice'.
(iv) A Court of Law can interfere only if there is an error on the face of the 'Award'.
(v) A Court of Law can interfere if an 'Arbitrator' had brushed aside/ignored the relevant clause and the terms of the agreement.
(vi) The Award is cemented on a proposition of Law which is erroneous.
(vii) An award could not be set aside just because the reasons are spelt out in brief.
(viii) Interpretation placed by the Arbitrator ought not be disturbed if it is plausible and not because a Court of Law would have come to a different conclusion.
(ix) No interference would be called for when an Arbitrator renders a finding on a particular question of Law when authorised by the concerned parties.
(x) A Court of Law should not disturb the 'Findings' of the Arbitrator when based on facts.
(xi) There must not be a reappreciation of the evidence by a Court of Law, in as much as the same was considered by an Arbitrator."
- See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/#sthash.RIhxrPsK.dpuf
The document discusses the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. The doctrine allows a court to find infringement even if the accused device does not literally infringe a patent claim, if it is equivalent to the claimed invention. It provides that an equivalent device performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. The doctrine balances protecting patent holders' inventions with providing clear notice of a patent's scope.
The document discusses the Roche v. Natco case, the first compulsory licensing application in India. It provides details of the arguments from both sides. Natco applied for a compulsory license to produce Roche's cancer drugs for export to Nepal. Roche argued it was entitled to be heard during consideration, but Natco said section 92A does not require this. The judge reserved the judgment.
Patents are widely regarded as a “crutial” instrument for intellectual property (IP) rights holders seeking to establish a unique market position for their patented products. Patents grant the owner exclusive rights to market their product, license their invention to third parties to recoup investments, and prevent competitors from infringing on their patent rights. Given the huge competitive advantages that the patent brings, it is not surprising that the occurrence of patent disputes is on the rise.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
The document discusses various issues relating to patent ownership and assignment. It covers initial patent ownership, how patents can be conveyed or assigned according to federal statute, requirements for recording patent assignments with the USPTO, and challenges in determining actual patent ownership. It also summarizes two court cases that established that state law may determine inheritance of a patent upon death or govern transfer of a patent during foreclosure, without requiring a written assignment under federal law.
This document summarizes a court case, Caparo Industries v Dickman, heard by the House of Lords in 1990. It discusses the judgment regarding whether an auditor owes a duty of care to investors and shareholders. Specifically, it examines if the appellant auditors owed a duty of care to the respondent Caparo Industries, who purchased shares in a company after reviewing audited financial statements. The judgment discusses the tension between the traditional approach of identifying duty in specific situations versus seeking a single general principle to determine duty of care.
Co-owned Patent Disputes in Vietnam What to Do .pdfKenfoxLaw
A co-owned patent arises when two or more parties jointly create an invention and seek patent protection for it. How if an invention is created by two parties, but just one party is named as inventor and owner while the other is only named as “inventor”? Can it cause any legal consequences? What can the other inventor do in such a case if the inventor who filed the patent application does not reach an amicable agreement on a co-owned patent? In recent news, the Intellectual Property Offices of Vietnam (IP VIETNAM) have been dealing with a case regarding “the right to file a patent application” in case of co-owned patent, highlighting the importance of understanding the legal requirements for patent filing and ownership. This article will focus on the specifics of this case and examine its implications for intellectual property rights in Vietnam.
Federal Circuit Affirms Patent and Trademark Office’s Denial of Patentability...Patton Boggs LLP
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent and Trademark Office's denial of a patent's validity through an inter partes reexamination, despite a prior Federal Circuit decision upholding the patent's validity in litigation. The court reasoned that litigation and reexamination take different approaches and can reach different conclusions on the same evidence. Specifically, litigation requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity, while reexamination requires only a preponderance of the evidence. Judge Newman dissented, arguing an administrative agency cannot override a court's final judgment on patent validity. The case highlights the interplay between litigation and the new inter partes review process under the America Invents Act.
This document discusses the "Bow Tie of Patent Claim Construction", which refers to the different methodologies used for construing patent claims during prosecution and litigation. During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation to facilitate narrowing the claims. During litigation, claims are given a contextually narrowed interpretation based on the specification and prosecution history, and can only be broadened if legally justified. These differing methodologies serve different purposes - narrow construction during prosecution and broader construction during litigation. The document provides historical context on the development of patent claims and analyzes key court cases addressing claim construction standards.
Indian Intellectual Property Cases Report, 2021.pdfBananaIP Counsels
BananaIP is happy to launch the IP Cases Report for the year 2021. This report covers cases related to intellectual property decided by Courts in India, in the form of case notes. These case notes cover important decisions on critical questions of law and fact with respect to various species of intellectual property.
2001-07-09 Declatory Judgements in Patent CasesLawrence Kass
The document summarizes the evolving test used by the Federal Circuit Court to determine personal jurisdiction in declaratory judgment patent cases. The Federal Circuit applies a three-part test: 1) whether the patentee purposefully directed activities at forum residents, 2) whether the claim arises from or relates to those activities, and 3) whether exercising jurisdiction would be constitutionally unreasonable. Sending a cease-and-desist letter alone is insufficient contact, but adding an exclusive license with a forum resident satisfies the test. The test balances a patentee's ability to enforce patents against subjecting them to distant forums.
A co-owned patent arises when two or more parties jointly create an invention and seek to obtain patent protection for it. How if an invention is created by two parties, but just one party is named as inventor and owner while the other is only named as “inventor”? Can it cause any legal consequences? What can the other inventor do in such a case if the inventor who filed the patent application does not reach an amicable agreement on a co-owned patent? In recent news, the Intellectual Property Offices of Vietnam (IP VIETNAM) have been dealing with a case regarding “the right to file a patent application” in case of co-owned patent, highlighting the importance of understanding the legal requirements for patent filing and ownership. This article will delve into the specifics of this case and how it impacts intellectual property rights in Vietnam.
Restoring the Corners to Contracts- David J. Myers, ESQ.Debi Myers
1. The document discusses changes to California's parole evidence rule regarding fraud exceptions. Previously, oral inducements inconsistent with written contracts could not be used to claim fraud. However, a recent court case now allows such claims to prevent fraudulent inducement.
2. Going forward, contract expectations will be less certain as fraud claims and litigation focusing on parties' intent and reliance will be more common. Boilerplate clauses will provide less protection. Sophistication of parties and reasonableness of reliance will be important factors.
3. Some potential limitations discussed include failing to read a contract, sophistication of parties, bargaining power differences, and failure to investigate. Reformation of contract terms based on fraud may also now be available
The document defines various legal terms related to trademarks and trademark law. It provides definitions for abandonment of a mark, acquiescence, action or office action, actual confusion, advertising comparative and injury, aesthetic functionality, affirmative defenses, affixation requirement, and alternative dispute resolution among other terms. The definitions are concise explanations of the key aspects and implications of each term.
This document summarizes the key aspects of Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate Code, which gives stockholders the right to inspect corporate books and records. It notes that while Section 220 was enacted in 1967 and aims to balance stockholder and director interests, it is silent on electronic data formats due to technological advances. The document analyzes statutory requirements for Section 220 demands and common law interpretations by the Court of Chancery. It argues the legislature should clarify Section 220 regarding electronically stored information as the Court has been given too much discretion in these cases.
The document discusses joint research agreements (JRAs) and how they can be used to overcome prior art rejections under the CREATE Act. It explains that the CREATE Act allows commonly owned secret prior art or prior art from different owners involved in a JRA to be disqualified. The summary discusses requirements for invoking the CREATE Act during patent prosecution to overcome rejections and potential issues like double patenting rejections that could result.
Knobbe Martens attorneys Jon Gurka and James Smith discuss recent district court rulings that have broadened the scope of IPR estoppel while they await the Supreme Court's decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal.
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesPatton Boggs LLP
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that deal with awarding attorneys' fees in patent cases. In the first case, Octane Fitness v. ICON Health, the Court will consider whether to lower the standard for determining an "exceptional case" in which fees can be awarded. In the second case, Highmark v. Allcare Health, the Court will determine how much deference appellate courts must give to lower court decisions on awarding fees. These rulings could make it easier for prevailing parties to recoup fees and deter patent holders from filing weak infringement claims.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
When Conveyances Go Wrong - Purchaser’s Remedies for Vendor BreachesLaina Chan
This document provides an overview and summary of a lecture about purchaser's remedies for vendor breaches in property conveyances. It discusses vendor obligations under common law caveat emptor principles. It also outlines legislative constraints on vendors under the Australian Consumer Law and Conveyancing Act, including implied warranties and prescribed documents that must be attached to contracts. Finally, it discusses various types of vendor breaches such as non-disclosure of contamination or development controls, and the available remedies to purchasers including rescission and damages.
Time Bars and their enforceability in English law EPC contractsEversheds Sutherland
The use of time bar clauses in standard form EPC contracts is common. How effective a tool are such clauses for managing contractors’ claims for extensions of time and additional payment, and what challenges will there be in enforcing a time bar clause?
As businesses continue to operate in Vietnam, the possibility of being accused of patent infringement is a looming threat. The mere accusation can cause uncertainty and worry for alleged infringers, who may face a range of negative consequences such as product seizures, lawsuits, and negative media attention. To mitigate these risks, various approaches can be taken, such as accepting the allegation, signing an undertaking letter, removing infringing products, or negotiating for a license. However, hastily accepting an IPR holder's request after an infringement accusation can result in greater legal risks. Anyone, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, should have their true rights and interests protected as long as they are just and legitimate. In many instances, the defendant or accused individual turns out to be not the perpetrator. When accused of patent infringement, it is critical to maintain your composure. Remember, Vietnam's IP law awards patent holders the exclusive right to profit and utilize inventions, to sue others for infringement, but not because of these privileges does it deprive an accused organization or individual of the right to self-defense, or the right to be defended. This article will explore the options for an alleged infringer in Vietnam and provide guidance on how to respond to such allegations while protecting their legal position.
Ince & Co Shipping E-Brief Autumn 2014
The Shipping E-brief is a quarterly publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
Sign up here to receive the E-Brief by email each quarter
Our Autumn 2014 edition of the Shipping E-Brief is full of articles dealing with topical shipping issues.
You can also subscribe to our podcasts with iTunes
http://incelaw.com/en/knowledge-bank/publications/shipping-ebrief-autumn-2014
The Delhi High Court issued directions on documents that must be filed in trade mark infringement cases. It allowed the legal proceedings certificate for the trademark "VENUS" to be submitted, despite objections that evidence had concluded, subject to a Rs. 50,000 cost. The Court outlined that the legal proceedings certificate, trademark registration certificate, or trademark journal and status report must be submitted initially or prior to trial if the registration is disputed. Parties also cannot deny the registration facts without verification.
[To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
This presentation is a curated compilation of PowerPoint diagrams and templates designed to illustrate 20 different digital transformation frameworks and models. These frameworks are based on recent industry trends and best practices, ensuring that the content remains relevant and up-to-date.
Key highlights include Microsoft's Digital Transformation Framework, which focuses on driving innovation and efficiency, and McKinsey's Ten Guiding Principles, which provide strategic insights for successful digital transformation. Additionally, Forrester's framework emphasizes enhancing customer experiences and modernizing IT infrastructure, while IDC's MaturityScape helps assess and develop organizational digital maturity. MIT's framework explores cutting-edge strategies for achieving digital success.
These materials are perfect for enhancing your business or classroom presentations, offering visual aids to supplement your insights. Please note that while comprehensive, these slides are intended as supplementary resources and may not be complete for standalone instructional purposes.
Frameworks/Models included:
Microsoft’s Digital Transformation Framework
McKinsey’s Ten Guiding Principles of Digital Transformation
Forrester’s Digital Transformation Framework
IDC’s Digital Transformation MaturityScape
MIT’s Digital Transformation Framework
Gartner’s Digital Transformation Framework
Accenture’s Digital Strategy & Enterprise Frameworks
Deloitte’s Digital Industrial Transformation Framework
Capgemini’s Digital Transformation Framework
PwC’s Digital Transformation Framework
Cisco’s Digital Transformation Framework
Cognizant’s Digital Transformation Framework
DXC Technology’s Digital Transformation Framework
The BCG Strategy Palette
McKinsey’s Digital Transformation Framework
Digital Transformation Compass
Four Levels of Digital Maturity
Design Thinking Framework
Business Model Canvas
Customer Journey Map
The document discusses various issues relating to patent ownership and assignment. It covers initial patent ownership, how patents can be conveyed or assigned according to federal statute, requirements for recording patent assignments with the USPTO, and challenges in determining actual patent ownership. It also summarizes two court cases that established that state law may determine inheritance of a patent upon death or govern transfer of a patent during foreclosure, without requiring a written assignment under federal law.
This document summarizes a court case, Caparo Industries v Dickman, heard by the House of Lords in 1990. It discusses the judgment regarding whether an auditor owes a duty of care to investors and shareholders. Specifically, it examines if the appellant auditors owed a duty of care to the respondent Caparo Industries, who purchased shares in a company after reviewing audited financial statements. The judgment discusses the tension between the traditional approach of identifying duty in specific situations versus seeking a single general principle to determine duty of care.
Co-owned Patent Disputes in Vietnam What to Do .pdfKenfoxLaw
A co-owned patent arises when two or more parties jointly create an invention and seek patent protection for it. How if an invention is created by two parties, but just one party is named as inventor and owner while the other is only named as “inventor”? Can it cause any legal consequences? What can the other inventor do in such a case if the inventor who filed the patent application does not reach an amicable agreement on a co-owned patent? In recent news, the Intellectual Property Offices of Vietnam (IP VIETNAM) have been dealing with a case regarding “the right to file a patent application” in case of co-owned patent, highlighting the importance of understanding the legal requirements for patent filing and ownership. This article will focus on the specifics of this case and examine its implications for intellectual property rights in Vietnam.
Federal Circuit Affirms Patent and Trademark Office’s Denial of Patentability...Patton Boggs LLP
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent and Trademark Office's denial of a patent's validity through an inter partes reexamination, despite a prior Federal Circuit decision upholding the patent's validity in litigation. The court reasoned that litigation and reexamination take different approaches and can reach different conclusions on the same evidence. Specifically, litigation requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity, while reexamination requires only a preponderance of the evidence. Judge Newman dissented, arguing an administrative agency cannot override a court's final judgment on patent validity. The case highlights the interplay between litigation and the new inter partes review process under the America Invents Act.
This document discusses the "Bow Tie of Patent Claim Construction", which refers to the different methodologies used for construing patent claims during prosecution and litigation. During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation to facilitate narrowing the claims. During litigation, claims are given a contextually narrowed interpretation based on the specification and prosecution history, and can only be broadened if legally justified. These differing methodologies serve different purposes - narrow construction during prosecution and broader construction during litigation. The document provides historical context on the development of patent claims and analyzes key court cases addressing claim construction standards.
Indian Intellectual Property Cases Report, 2021.pdfBananaIP Counsels
BananaIP is happy to launch the IP Cases Report for the year 2021. This report covers cases related to intellectual property decided by Courts in India, in the form of case notes. These case notes cover important decisions on critical questions of law and fact with respect to various species of intellectual property.
2001-07-09 Declatory Judgements in Patent CasesLawrence Kass
The document summarizes the evolving test used by the Federal Circuit Court to determine personal jurisdiction in declaratory judgment patent cases. The Federal Circuit applies a three-part test: 1) whether the patentee purposefully directed activities at forum residents, 2) whether the claim arises from or relates to those activities, and 3) whether exercising jurisdiction would be constitutionally unreasonable. Sending a cease-and-desist letter alone is insufficient contact, but adding an exclusive license with a forum resident satisfies the test. The test balances a patentee's ability to enforce patents against subjecting them to distant forums.
A co-owned patent arises when two or more parties jointly create an invention and seek to obtain patent protection for it. How if an invention is created by two parties, but just one party is named as inventor and owner while the other is only named as “inventor”? Can it cause any legal consequences? What can the other inventor do in such a case if the inventor who filed the patent application does not reach an amicable agreement on a co-owned patent? In recent news, the Intellectual Property Offices of Vietnam (IP VIETNAM) have been dealing with a case regarding “the right to file a patent application” in case of co-owned patent, highlighting the importance of understanding the legal requirements for patent filing and ownership. This article will delve into the specifics of this case and how it impacts intellectual property rights in Vietnam.
Restoring the Corners to Contracts- David J. Myers, ESQ.Debi Myers
1. The document discusses changes to California's parole evidence rule regarding fraud exceptions. Previously, oral inducements inconsistent with written contracts could not be used to claim fraud. However, a recent court case now allows such claims to prevent fraudulent inducement.
2. Going forward, contract expectations will be less certain as fraud claims and litigation focusing on parties' intent and reliance will be more common. Boilerplate clauses will provide less protection. Sophistication of parties and reasonableness of reliance will be important factors.
3. Some potential limitations discussed include failing to read a contract, sophistication of parties, bargaining power differences, and failure to investigate. Reformation of contract terms based on fraud may also now be available
The document defines various legal terms related to trademarks and trademark law. It provides definitions for abandonment of a mark, acquiescence, action or office action, actual confusion, advertising comparative and injury, aesthetic functionality, affirmative defenses, affixation requirement, and alternative dispute resolution among other terms. The definitions are concise explanations of the key aspects and implications of each term.
This document summarizes the key aspects of Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate Code, which gives stockholders the right to inspect corporate books and records. It notes that while Section 220 was enacted in 1967 and aims to balance stockholder and director interests, it is silent on electronic data formats due to technological advances. The document analyzes statutory requirements for Section 220 demands and common law interpretations by the Court of Chancery. It argues the legislature should clarify Section 220 regarding electronically stored information as the Court has been given too much discretion in these cases.
The document discusses joint research agreements (JRAs) and how they can be used to overcome prior art rejections under the CREATE Act. It explains that the CREATE Act allows commonly owned secret prior art or prior art from different owners involved in a JRA to be disqualified. The summary discusses requirements for invoking the CREATE Act during patent prosecution to overcome rejections and potential issues like double patenting rejections that could result.
Knobbe Martens attorneys Jon Gurka and James Smith discuss recent district court rulings that have broadened the scope of IPR estoppel while they await the Supreme Court's decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal.
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesPatton Boggs LLP
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that deal with awarding attorneys' fees in patent cases. In the first case, Octane Fitness v. ICON Health, the Court will consider whether to lower the standard for determining an "exceptional case" in which fees can be awarded. In the second case, Highmark v. Allcare Health, the Court will determine how much deference appellate courts must give to lower court decisions on awarding fees. These rulings could make it easier for prevailing parties to recoup fees and deter patent holders from filing weak infringement claims.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
When Conveyances Go Wrong - Purchaser’s Remedies for Vendor BreachesLaina Chan
This document provides an overview and summary of a lecture about purchaser's remedies for vendor breaches in property conveyances. It discusses vendor obligations under common law caveat emptor principles. It also outlines legislative constraints on vendors under the Australian Consumer Law and Conveyancing Act, including implied warranties and prescribed documents that must be attached to contracts. Finally, it discusses various types of vendor breaches such as non-disclosure of contamination or development controls, and the available remedies to purchasers including rescission and damages.
Time Bars and their enforceability in English law EPC contractsEversheds Sutherland
The use of time bar clauses in standard form EPC contracts is common. How effective a tool are such clauses for managing contractors’ claims for extensions of time and additional payment, and what challenges will there be in enforcing a time bar clause?
As businesses continue to operate in Vietnam, the possibility of being accused of patent infringement is a looming threat. The mere accusation can cause uncertainty and worry for alleged infringers, who may face a range of negative consequences such as product seizures, lawsuits, and negative media attention. To mitigate these risks, various approaches can be taken, such as accepting the allegation, signing an undertaking letter, removing infringing products, or negotiating for a license. However, hastily accepting an IPR holder's request after an infringement accusation can result in greater legal risks. Anyone, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, should have their true rights and interests protected as long as they are just and legitimate. In many instances, the defendant or accused individual turns out to be not the perpetrator. When accused of patent infringement, it is critical to maintain your composure. Remember, Vietnam's IP law awards patent holders the exclusive right to profit and utilize inventions, to sue others for infringement, but not because of these privileges does it deprive an accused organization or individual of the right to self-defense, or the right to be defended. This article will explore the options for an alleged infringer in Vietnam and provide guidance on how to respond to such allegations while protecting their legal position.
Ince & Co Shipping E-Brief Autumn 2014
The Shipping E-brief is a quarterly publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
Sign up here to receive the E-Brief by email each quarter
Our Autumn 2014 edition of the Shipping E-Brief is full of articles dealing with topical shipping issues.
You can also subscribe to our podcasts with iTunes
http://incelaw.com/en/knowledge-bank/publications/shipping-ebrief-autumn-2014
The Delhi High Court issued directions on documents that must be filed in trade mark infringement cases. It allowed the legal proceedings certificate for the trademark "VENUS" to be submitted, despite objections that evidence had concluded, subject to a Rs. 50,000 cost. The Court outlined that the legal proceedings certificate, trademark registration certificate, or trademark journal and status report must be submitted initially or prior to trial if the registration is disputed. Parties also cannot deny the registration facts without verification.
Similar to Know how – can a licensee sell its rights? (Neobev Case Jan 2014) (20)
[To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
This presentation is a curated compilation of PowerPoint diagrams and templates designed to illustrate 20 different digital transformation frameworks and models. These frameworks are based on recent industry trends and best practices, ensuring that the content remains relevant and up-to-date.
Key highlights include Microsoft's Digital Transformation Framework, which focuses on driving innovation and efficiency, and McKinsey's Ten Guiding Principles, which provide strategic insights for successful digital transformation. Additionally, Forrester's framework emphasizes enhancing customer experiences and modernizing IT infrastructure, while IDC's MaturityScape helps assess and develop organizational digital maturity. MIT's framework explores cutting-edge strategies for achieving digital success.
These materials are perfect for enhancing your business or classroom presentations, offering visual aids to supplement your insights. Please note that while comprehensive, these slides are intended as supplementary resources and may not be complete for standalone instructional purposes.
Frameworks/Models included:
Microsoft’s Digital Transformation Framework
McKinsey’s Ten Guiding Principles of Digital Transformation
Forrester’s Digital Transformation Framework
IDC’s Digital Transformation MaturityScape
MIT’s Digital Transformation Framework
Gartner’s Digital Transformation Framework
Accenture’s Digital Strategy & Enterprise Frameworks
Deloitte’s Digital Industrial Transformation Framework
Capgemini’s Digital Transformation Framework
PwC’s Digital Transformation Framework
Cisco’s Digital Transformation Framework
Cognizant’s Digital Transformation Framework
DXC Technology’s Digital Transformation Framework
The BCG Strategy Palette
McKinsey’s Digital Transformation Framework
Digital Transformation Compass
Four Levels of Digital Maturity
Design Thinking Framework
Business Model Canvas
Customer Journey Map
Part 2 Deep Dive: Navigating the 2024 Slowdownjeffkluth1
Introduction
The global retail industry has weathered numerous storms, with the financial crisis of 2008 serving as a poignant reminder of the sector's resilience and adaptability. However, as we navigate the complex landscape of 2024, retailers face a unique set of challenges that demand innovative strategies and a fundamental shift in mindset. This white paper contrasts the impact of the 2008 recession on the retail sector with the current headwinds retailers are grappling with, while offering a comprehensive roadmap for success in this new paradigm.
Taurus Zodiac Sign: Unveiling the Traits, Dates, and Horoscope Insights of th...my Pandit
Dive into the steadfast world of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the grounded, stable, and logical nature of Taurus individuals, and explore their key personality traits, important dates, and horoscope insights. Learn how the determination and patience of the Taurus sign make them the rock-steady achievers and anchors of the zodiac.
❼❷⓿❺❻❷❽❷❼❽ Dpboss Matka Result Satta Matka Guessing Satta Fix jodi Kalyan Final ank Satta Matka Dpbos Final ank Satta Matta Matka 143 Kalyan Matka Guessing Final Matka Final ank Today Matka 420 Satta Batta Satta 143 Kalyan Chart Main Bazar Chart vip Matka Guessing Dpboss 143 Guessing Kalyan night
Zodiac Signs and Food Preferences_ What Your Sign Says About Your Tastemy Pandit
Know what your zodiac sign says about your taste in food! Explore how the 12 zodiac signs influence your culinary preferences with insights from MyPandit. Dive into astrology and flavors!
Discover timeless style with the 2022 Vintage Roman Numerals Men's Ring. Crafted from premium stainless steel, this 6mm wide ring embodies elegance and durability. Perfect as a gift, it seamlessly blends classic Roman numeral detailing with modern sophistication, making it an ideal accessory for any occasion.
https://rb.gy/usj1a2
Brian Fitzsimmons on the Business Strategy and Content Flywheel of Barstool S...Neil Horowitz
On episode 272 of the Digital and Social Media Sports Podcast, Neil chatted with Brian Fitzsimmons, Director of Licensing and Business Development for Barstool Sports.
What follows is a collection of snippets from the podcast. To hear the full interview and more, check out the podcast on all podcast platforms and at www.dsmsports.net
Anny Serafina Love - Letter of Recommendation by Kellen Harkins, MS.AnnySerafinaLove
This letter, written by Kellen Harkins, Course Director at Full Sail University, commends Anny Love's exemplary performance in the Video Sharing Platforms class. It highlights her dedication, willingness to challenge herself, and exceptional skills in production, editing, and marketing across various video platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.
How to Implement a Strategy: Transform Your Strategy with BSC Designer's Comp...Aleksey Savkin
The Strategy Implementation System offers a structured approach to translating stakeholder needs into actionable strategies using high-level and low-level scorecards. It involves stakeholder analysis, strategy decomposition, adoption of strategic frameworks like Balanced Scorecard or OKR, and alignment of goals, initiatives, and KPIs.
Key Components:
- Stakeholder Analysis
- Strategy Decomposition
- Adoption of Business Frameworks
- Goal Setting
- Initiatives and Action Plans
- KPIs and Performance Metrics
- Learning and Adaptation
- Alignment and Cascading of Scorecards
Benefits:
- Systematic strategy formulation and execution.
- Framework flexibility and automation.
- Enhanced alignment and strategic focus across the organization.
Storytelling is an incredibly valuable tool to share data and information. To get the most impact from stories there are a number of key ingredients. These are based on science and human nature. Using these elements in a story you can deliver information impactfully, ensure action and drive change.
How to Implement a Real Estate CRM SoftwareSalesTown
To implement a CRM for real estate, set clear goals, choose a CRM with key real estate features, and customize it to your needs. Migrate your data, train your team, and use automation to save time. Monitor performance, ensure data security, and use the CRM to enhance marketing. Regularly check its effectiveness to improve your business.
The APCO Geopolitical Radar - Q3 2024 The Global Operating Environment for Bu...APCO
The Radar reflects input from APCO’s teams located around the world. It distils a host of interconnected events and trends into insights to inform operational and strategic decisions. Issues covered in this edition include:
The 10 Most Influential Leaders Guiding Corporate Evolution, 2024.pdfthesiliconleaders
In the recent edition, The 10 Most Influential Leaders Guiding Corporate Evolution, 2024, The Silicon Leaders magazine gladly features Dejan Štancer, President of the Global Chamber of Business Leaders (GCBL), along with other leaders.
How MJ Global Leads the Packaging Industry.pdfMJ Global
MJ Global's success in staying ahead of the curve in the packaging industry is a testament to its dedication to innovation, sustainability, and customer-centricity. By embracing technological advancements, leading in eco-friendly solutions, collaborating with industry leaders, and adapting to evolving consumer preferences, MJ Global continues to set new standards in the packaging sector.
At Techbox Square, in Singapore, we're not just creative web designers and developers, we're the driving force behind your brand identity. Contact us today.
Dpboss Matka Guessing Satta Matta Matka Kalyan Chart Satta Matka
Know how – can a licensee sell its rights? (Neobev Case Jan 2014)
1. Know-how – can a licensee sell its rights?
Without the know-how licensor’s consent, assignments of know-how licenses may not
be possible: Neobev Case 2014.
Bacchus was part owner of a patent with Neobev.
Bacchus was the licensee under certain intellectual
property licenses from Neobev:
• Neobev’s patent co-ownership;
• copyright in a number works describing
recipes, process instructions, standard
operating procedures, testing specifications
and laboratory procedures relating to cream
liqueur beverages; and
• confidential information/know-how relating to
the subject of those copyright works.
Bacchus went into liquidation. The liquidator of
Bacchus proposed to assign Bacchus’ licensed rights.
The terms of Bacchus’ licenses were unclear, and in
any event did not expressly provide for either the
termination of the licenses on insolvency, or their
continuity post-cessation of Bacchus’ business.
The Federal Court of Australia decided on January 16,
2014 that at least insofar as the know-how rights were
concerned, Bacchus’ licenses were not assignable.
The case is Neobev Pty Ltd v Bacchus Distillery Pty
Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 3) [2014] FCA 4.
The following points were made in the reasons for
judgment.
A trust of a patent
Regardless of what is recorded on the patents register
as to the inventors and as to the owners, a trust may
be declared in circumstances where that is the
intention of the relevant parties, determined
objectively. Such a trust need not be in writing and
may be declared over future property (in this case, a
patent to be granted in the future).
Registration of equitable interests in a patent
An equitable interest in a trust may be registered on
the patents register. This is so despite s 188 of the
Patents Act 1990 (Cth), which provides that “notice of
any kind of trust relating to a patent or license is not
receivable by the [Patents Office] and must not be
registered”. The Court endorsed previous case law
authority holding that this section is to be read
narrowly.
Could Neobev say “no”?
Neobev was entitled, as co-owner, to withhold its
consent to any license or assignment of the co-owned
patent by Bacchus (Patents Act s 16(1)(c)).
Termination on insolvency?
The Court referred (without endorsement) to cases
suggesting that an insolvency administration of an
intellectual property licensee does not necessarily
bring a license to an end.
Assignment of confidentiality obligations?
This being a case where the rights owner had not
consented, and was not prepared to consent, to the
licensee’s assignment of its know-how rights, the
assignment of the rights by the liquidator to a
purchaser of Bacchus’ business was not legally
possible. The reason concerned the inextricable link
between rights and obligations and the rule that
contractual burdens/obligations are not assignable.
The court stated:
(At para 141):
“Bacchus emphasises the right to use the information, but
one of the features of the confidential information is that it
was received by Bacchus in such circumstances as to
import a duty of confidence . . . It seems fundamentally
inconsistent with that feature to allow assignment by the
person who owes the obligation of confidence. That might
be possible where there is an express provision allowing
assignment . . . but there is no express provision allowing
assignment in this case. There is no basis upon which to
imply such a provision. One cannot transfer the right to use
without the obligation and the obligation is incapable of
assignment..” [para 141]
This case sounds a note of caution to those drafting
nondisclosure agreements and licenses of confidential
information, particularly in circumstances where a sale
by the licensee of its rights can be envisaged.
The parties will need to make express provision for
that in a way which is not seen as assigning obligations
without the licensor’s consent.
Last update: March 13, 2014
Anna Sharpe | Sharpe Ivo
(AU & Int’l) +61 [0]409 809 963 | asharpe@sharpeivo.com | www.sharpeivo.com