- 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
DataCard Corporation Vs Eagle Technologies – Part 1
Introduction: It is a direct Patent Infringement case, the claimant “Data card Corporation” (Datacard) sued Eagle technologies for infringing its couple of patents: UK 1458572 (‘572) and UK 1534530 (‘530) and also a couple of trademarks: UK 1399698 (‘698) and UK 1399699 (‘699). When I was searching case laws to understand the degree of obviousness, … Continue reading DataCard Corporation Vs Eagle Technologies – Part 1
Read more »Microsoft Corp V/s TiVo, Inc
The present case relates to an infringement petition filed by Microsoft Corp against TiVo, Inc. in California Northern District Court, for infringing its two patents, Patent No. US 6,008,803, (‘803) and Patent No. 6,055,314, (‘314). The case was filed on January 19, 2010. The case is still waiting for its decision and its next hearing … Continue reading Microsoft Corp V/s TiVo, Inc
Read more »Due Diligence Search Strategies…2
This article is in continuation with the blog “Due Diligence Search Strategies for Determining Patentability of Exemplary Indian Patent Applications” by IIPRD (Please click here to read the blog), an initiative from IIPRD to randomly pick up recently published Indian patent application and try and understand the chances of getting a valid patent. IIPRD made … Continue reading Due Diligence Search Strategies…2
Read more »Due Diligence Search Strategies for Determining Patentability of Exemplary Indian Patent Applications
When Patent experts advise to Large and Small Corporations and Institutes to focus on Due-Diligence before filing patent application, it’s not without any substantive motive. What is the point of having a patent, even though it gets a grant, if the same is not enforceable? It’s almost like having a piece of paper with no … Continue reading Due Diligence Search Strategies for Determining Patentability of Exemplary Indian Patent Applications
Read more »Soy Meal a “Dead Material”- No Functional DNA
January 27, 2011 - 1:01 pm
Categories:
Patent Litigation
Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
1 Comments
A Patent Infringement suit was filed by Monsanto Technology LLC against Cefetra, Vopak Agencies and Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH, for exporting soy meal from Argentina to European Community. The judgement was carried out by the court of justice of European Communities “Grand Chamber”. Preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank’s’Gravenhage (Netherlands). Introduction: … Continue reading Soy Meal a “Dead Material”- No Functional DNA
Read more »Clear and Convincing Evidence
Case “Microsoft Vs i4i” interests me as I saw the recent Supreme Court decision to hear this case again. Long story, in short, i4i filed a patent in 1994 and gets granted on 07/98 (US 5,787,449). ‘449 relates to a system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, … Continue reading Clear and Convincing Evidence
Read more »Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness
The present case relates to reexamination (Reexamination No. 90/008,482) of US Patent No. 5, 236, 503, referred to as ‘503 hereinafter. The concerned Applicant GLATT AIR TECHNIQUES, INC. (referred to as Glatt hereinafter) appealed against the order of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which was decided on 5’th Jan 2011. As an introduction, … Continue reading Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness
Read more »Sun Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly: Doctrine of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
December 16, 2010 - 8:38 am
Categories:
Patent Litigation
Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
0 Comments
A remarkable latest change in the Patentability has risen from the decision of the Federal Circuit in the case Sun Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly, over the later’s patent that claimed the use of gemcitabine (GEMZAR), a drug to treat cancer. Sun Pharma moved to lower court to invalidate this patent on the grounds of obviousness-type … Continue reading Sun Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly: Doctrine of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Read more »Greif & Technocraft
The case is all about a mech. patent granted in Europe in 2008. The Proprietor (Applicant) Grief International Holding B.V is holding the Patent EP 1467922 (‘922). The Patent relates to an improved container closure plug having a unique gasket retaining feature. Interestingly, Technocraft Industries, a company based out of India filed an Opposition in … Continue reading Greif & Technocraft
Read more »The Bilski Battle Ends…still the war of Patenting Business Method is on…
Introduction:- Do you need one? I am sure by this time you would have read or heard about the Bilski case somewhere. Well it’s not too late to know about it. Petitioner filed a patent application that claims a Business method @ USPTO. The claim included a subject matter that explains how commodities buyers and … Continue reading The Bilski Battle Ends…still the war of Patenting Business Method is on…
Read more »