patent infringement | IIPRD

Category: patent infringement

Tearing Down A Product to Look for Patent Infringement

February 21, 2020 - 7:23 am Categories: patent infringement

In today’s world where most companies depend on other manufacturers to supply them with the necessary components to build a desired end product, it becomes strikingly important for a patent asserting body to understand the infringing parties and their role and significance in carrying out the infringement by the accused product. Product teardown reporting is … Continue reading Tearing Down A Product to Look for Patent Infringement

Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

May 11, 2019 - 11:47 am Categories: Copyright Copyright Infringement Copyright Litigation Intellectual Property IP Commercialization IP Licensing IP Litigation Licensing Office patent infringement Patent Licensing Patent Litigation Patent Prosecution Patents Trademark Trademark Litigation

Upon successful practicing in the area of Intellectual Property (IP) and Commercial Litigation over the decade, Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys together with its IP Asset Management Practice, IIPRD, feels immense pleasure to announce the recent opening of its 8th branch in Jalandhar. With years of helping corporates identify, create, protect, promote and … Continue reading Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

BLACKBERRY SUES NOKIA FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW

February 27, 2017 - 10:28 am Categories: India News & Updates patent infringement Uncategorized

The once powerful mobile phone companies BlackBerry and Nokia are in the headlines again, not for their new technological developments but because of their legal battle. The Valentine’s Day card for Nokia was in the form of complaint entailing 11 items that Blackberry did not like about it. The complaint listed out the 11 patents … Continue reading BLACKBERRY SUES NOKIA FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW

Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

February 24, 2017 - 1:44 pm Categories: IP Litigation News & Updates patent infringement Patents

In Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.; APP Pharmaceuticals LLC; Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as Defendants/Appellants/Teva) Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Appelle/Eli Lilly) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on January 12, 2017, Plaintiff had filed … Continue reading Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

Hetero’s Subsidiaries not infringing Roxane’s patent on PhosLo

December 14, 2016 - 7:11 am Categories: India IP Litigation patent infringement Patents

In Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as “Roxane”) v. Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Camber”) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 17, 2016, Roxane had appealed against decision of district court in an infringement suit against Camber and Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc (collectively … Continue reading Hetero’s Subsidiaries not infringing Roxane’s patent on PhosLo

Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?

August 31, 2016 - 6:12 am Categories: News & Updates patent infringement Patent Litigation Patents

This issue was handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the SCRIPTPRO LLC, SCRIPTPRO USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee decided on August 15, 2016. This was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in No. 2:06-cv-02468-CM, Judge Carlos Murguia. United … Continue reading Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?

Only Common Sense Not Sufficient to Prove Obviousness Over Prior Art

August 31, 2016 - 5:56 am Categories: News & Updates patent infringement Patent Litigation Patents

Can the grant of patent be rejected on the obviousness criteria based only on common sense? This issue has been handled by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of ARENDI S.A.R.L., Appellant v. APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Appellees, decided on August 10, 2016. On December 2, … Continue reading Only Common Sense Not Sufficient to Prove Obviousness Over Prior Art

Can Inventors Who Contribute to Only One Claim or One Aspect of One Claim of a Patent, may be Listed on Patent?

August 31, 2016 - 5:42 am Categories: News & Updates patent infringement Patent Litigation Patents

This question was handled by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of VAPOR POINT LLC, KEITH NATHAN, KENNETH MATHESON, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants DON ALFORD, JEFFEREY ST. AMANT, Counterclaim Defendants-Cross-Appellants v. ELLIOTT MOORHEAD, NANOVAPOR FUELS GROUP, INC., BRYANT HICKMAN, Defendants-Appellants, decided on August 10, 2016. Vapor Point, L.L.C., Keith Nathan (“Nathan”), and … Continue reading Can Inventors Who Contribute to Only One Claim or One Aspect of One Claim of a Patent, may be Listed on Patent?

CO2 Solutions Wins Patent Challenge Against Akermin in Denmark

August 16, 2016 - 4:32 am Categories: News & Updates patent infringement Patents

CO2 Solutions Inc, a leader in the field of enzyme-enabled carbon capture technology, has successfully defended its broad intellectual property (IP) rights to its enzyme-enabled carbon capture technology in a case brought against it by U.S.-based Akermin Inc. in Denmark. Based in Quebec City, CO2 Solutions Inc. is an innovator in the field of enzyme-enabled … Continue reading CO2 Solutions Wins Patent Challenge Against Akermin in Denmark

Federal Circuit Rules 180-Day Post-Licensure Notice is Mandatory in Biosimilar Litigation

July 11, 2016 - 4:37 am Categories: IP Litigation News & Updates patent infringement Patent Litigation Patents Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations

In Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5, 2016 affirmed a district court’s ruling that a biosimilar applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before commercial marketing of a biosimilar product begins, regardless of whether the applicant provided the § … Continue reading Federal Circuit Rules 180-Day Post-Licensure Notice is Mandatory in Biosimilar Litigation

Categories

Archives