Search for: "Medela AG"
Results 1 - 7 of 7
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
18 Aug 8:58 am
Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (petition for a writ of certiorari) Question presented: Whether a
person accused of patent infringement has a right to independent judicial, as distinct from lay jury, determination of whether an asserted patent claim satisfies the "non-obvious
subject matter" condition for patentability. Medela defended against allegations of patent infringement by arguing that the asserted patent was
invalid for obviousness. The district court provided the jury ...
28 Aug 6:56 am
The Supreme Court has been asked to hear the case of Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. to decide
this question. In its petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, Medela argues that the Court has long held that "[t]he ultimate judgment of
obviousness is a legal determination." Yet, Federal Circuit precedent permits the jury to make [...]
24 Aug 7:01 am
... patent ownership (and standing) can vest through operation of law: Sky Technologies v SAP AG (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O)
(Property, intangible) US CAFC ... ownership (and standing) can vest through operation of law: Sky Technologies v SAP AG (Peter Zura's 271
Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Property, intangible) CAFC en ... (Holman's Biotech IP Blog) Supreme Court asked to yank obviousness from the purview of juries: Medela AG v Kinetic Concepts, Inc (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently ...
8 Apr, 2007 2:59 am
Further to previous posts on IPBiz (here and here), the infringement trial of KCI v. Medela AG and
BlueSky Medical Group is over. The patents are valid and enforceable but NOT INFRINGED: jurors still determined that the Versatile 1 system marketed by San Diego-based BlueSky did not
infringe on Kinetic Concepts' V.A.C. patents. KCI has an exclusive licensing agreement with Wake Forest University to utilize the V.A.C. technology in its wound therapy devices.
20 Aug 6:04 pm
Columbus Post Dispatch CA Arsonist's Relative Accused of Jury Tampering PatentlyO Blog Judge versus Jury: Who Should Decide the Question of Obviousness? ABA Journal Med-Mal Closing
Sickens Juror, Spurring Defendant's Help and New Trial WSAZ-TV Mason County Man Charged with Sending Jurors Threatening Letters Washington Post Ethics Case Against a Top State Appeals
Lawyer Is Thrown Out Vancouver Sun Knowing too much about jurors not always the best
31 Aug 7:25 pm
... colours require definition to avoid indefiniteness: On the First Ltd v Seiko Epson Corp (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) Supreme Court asked to hear Medela AG v Kinetic Concepts, Inc - Should obviousness be determined by the court or the jury? (Inventive Step)
Review of some of the amici briefs filed in Bilski (Holman's Biotech IP Blog) US Patents - Lawsuits and strategic steps Hexagon Metrology - ITC ...
11 Nov 8:00 am
... support a holding in favor of First Amendment claims. Opinion below (11th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Docket: 09-198 Title: Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. Issue: Whether a person accused of patent infringement has a right to an
independent judicial, as distinct from lay jury, determination of whether an asserted patent claim satisfies the "non-obvious subject matter" condition for patentability ...
Search on: Blawgs.FM | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blog Search | Technorati | Google | MSN | Yahoo!