- Advertising
- Asia
- Bangladesh
- Biological Inventions
- BRAND VALUATION
- China
- Comparative Advertisement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Marketing Rights
- DRM
- Geographical Indication
- India
- Indian Patents Act
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Interim Injunction
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- Japan
- Legal Issues
- Licensing
- Malaysia
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- Net Neutrality
- News & Updates
- Office
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Cooperation Treaty
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patent Term Extension
- Patents
- pharma
- Philippines
- Punitive Damages
- Section 3(D)
- section 64
- Singapore
- South-east Asia
- Technology
- Technology Transfer
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Litigation
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
IIPRD and Khurana & Khurana open Branch Office in Pune
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (K&K) along with its sister concern, an IP Consulting Firm IIPRD announce that they have opened up a branch office in Pune in wake of the rising client requirements and towards their goal of expanding their operations across India. K&K is one of the fastest-growing full-service IP Law … Continue reading IIPRD and Khurana & Khurana open Branch Office in Pune
Read more »Enercon India Ltd (EIL) Vs Enercon GMBH (EG)
June 18, 2011 - 7:02 am
Categories:
High Tech Patent Litigations
IP Practice in India
Patent Litigation
0 Comments This article is directed to interested persons who have not been regularly following the Enercon Case, one the few patent litigation battles which have seen the light of day and are setting new standards in decision making on issues relating to formality rejections and obviousness/inventive step issues. This article puts a quick snapshot of what … Continue reading Enercon India Ltd (EIL) Vs Enercon GMBH (EG)
Read more »Clear and Convincing …Says US Apex
This blog is just an update of the US Supreme Court hearing in the case “Microsoft Vs. i4i”. For more details about the initial proceedings, please click here to visit my earlier blog “Clear and Convincing evidence” posted on January 10th, 2011. The patent act indicates that issued patents are “presumed valid.” 35 U.S.C. § … Continue reading Clear and Convincing …Says US Apex
Read more »Kurian’s Sudden Exit Surprises the Industry
The Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks at the Indian Intellectual Property Office Mr. P.H. Kurian has made a sudden and surprising request to exit from his role, a shock to the entire IP fraternity keeping in mind the initiatives and drives he undertook during the leadership. Mr. P.H. Kurian was appointed as the … Continue reading Kurian’s Sudden Exit Surprises the Industry
Read more »Bruce N. Saffran Vs Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation
Introduction A patent infringement suit filed by Bruce N. Saffran, a New Jersey Radiologist (“Plaintiff”) against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Cordis Corporation (“Defendants”) claiming that defendants directly infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,653,760 (filed Aug. 9, 1995) (the `760 patent;) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Macromolecular Distribution”. Defendants’ accused products are the Cypher drug-eluting … Continue reading Bruce N. Saffran Vs Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation
Read more »