Search for: "RPC Inc"
Results 41 - 60
of 142
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2017, 4:09 pm
Canada On 1 February 2017, the Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down judgment in the case of The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 1:15 am
The answer to this was not entirely satisfactory IMHO - essentially, it was argued that the problem to be solved needed to be defined broadly enough to allow several closest prior art documents to be considered.On the use up period, the BGH explicitly referred to the UK decision Navitaire Inc v EasyJet Airline Co Ltd (No. 2) [2005] EWHC 282 (Ch), [2006] RPC 4 for the proposition that injunctive relief should only be denied if it is "grossly disporportionate". [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 3:57 pm
Jane Lambert Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell LLP [2016] EWHC 3360 (IPEC) (22 Dec 2016) In Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc, and Others, [1990] 1 WLR 491, [1990] RPC 341, [1990] 1 All ER 873, [1990] WLR 491, [1990] UKHL 12 discussed the elements of an action for passing off. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 3:36 pm
In these circumstances and absent an error of principle, an appellate court will be very cautious in differing from the judge's evaluation: see SmithKline Beecham's Patent [2006] RPC 323 at [38] per Lord Hoffmann; Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1715 at [24] to [25] per Jacob LJ" 3. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 4:00 am
Simek is the Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc.. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 7:49 pm
In North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2016, 9:24 am
Following the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Chocosuisse Union Des Fabricants Suisse De Chocolat and Others v Cadbury Limited [1999] RPC 826, the Court held that the first respondent did not have locus standi to commence the action for passing-off due to its lack of a business interest or goodwill. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
Further, in granting such relief the English court would be usurping the EPO's validity examination jurisdiction directly or indirectly contrary to Article 27 of the Recast Brussels Regulation and Lenzing Ag's European Patent [1997] RPC 245. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 9:46 am
The Court of Appeal drew assistance from the Australian case of Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corp Pty Ltd [1994] FSR 567 which involved an account of profits. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 11:24 am
No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Justia Inc. or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 11:24 am
No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Justia Inc. or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 10:00 am
No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Justia Inc. or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 10:00 am
No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Justia Inc. or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 10:47 am
Once again, the comments to Florida RPC Rule 4-7.13 are instructive here. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 10:47 am
No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Justia Inc. or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 9:50 am
That is what today's decision addresses.Appeal to the Supreme CourtThe Court of Appeal has refused leave for Smith & Nephew to appeal to the Supreme Court, because it considered that there is no significant point of general public importance at stake, since it has done no more than apply the established principles of claim construction from Kirin Amgen (Kirin Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9) to the case before it. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:30 am
It is always open to a party attacking the patent to argue that the claims as sought to be construed by the patentee lack support in the specification: see for example American Home Products v Novartis [2001] RPC 8 at [31]. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 6:12 am
In "The wounded patent survived, was only just infringed, but no injunction", here, fellow Kat Darren wrote about the decision of Birss J in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat), a technically detailed case which amused Merpel, who commented that a case that started off being basically about chemistry ended up being basically about mathematics. [read post]
18 May 2015, 4:34 pm
Source Wikipedia In Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491, [1990] RPC 341, [1990] WLR 491, [1990] 1 All ER 873, [1990] UKHL 12, Lord Oliver said: "The law of passing off can be summarised in one short general [read post]
17 May 2015, 1:08 am
It is not sufficient that the repute would lead people in England to visit the venue when they visited Paris (Alain Bernardin et Cie v Pavilion Properties Ltd [1967] RPC 581). [read post]
