Search for: "RPC Inc"
Results 81 - 100
of 142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2010, 5:21 pm
Loving Care Agency Inc. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 12:52 pm
The Opinion, delivered last month, is In re Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 4:43 pm
See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 12:27 am
The relevance of survey evidence, the purpose of which is it provide real evidence from ordinary members of the public wholly untainted by any artificiality (per Neutrogena [1996] RPC 473 at 497), was found to depend on whether it assists the judge's own assessment of the perception of the notional person. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:45 am
Merpel notes that, curiously, both the majority and the minority invoked the judgment of Jacob J (as he then was) in Neutrogena Corporation v Golden Ltd [1996] RPC 473 in support of their respective views. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 6:14 pm
As an example if one considers how inventive step was assessed in Teva UK Limited & Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited v Leo Pharma A/S & Leo Laboratories Limited [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat) (see Katpost here) one sees that for a pharmaceutical formulation the following criteria may be relevant:* obvious to try * reasonable expectation of success * prejudice * inventive selection * the Technograph test (Technograph v Mills & Rockley [1972] RPC 346) * synergyMr… [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 6:02 am
Biogen insufficiency: Enablement over the entire scope of the claimLord Hoffman established in Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, that a specification must enable the invention to be performed across the full scope of the claim. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 7:13 am
He referred in particular to comments by Laddie J in Mercury Communications Ltd v Mercury Interactive (UK) Ltd [1995] FSR 850, at 863-865; by Jacob J in Laboratoire De La Mer Trade Marks [2002] FSR 51, at [19]; and by Aldous LJ in Thomson Holidays v Norwegian Cruise Line [2002] EWCA Civ 1828; [2003] RPC 32, at [29]. [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]
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]
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]
21 May 2019, 1:13 am
Music Collection International Limited [1995] RPC 657 (United Kingdom). [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]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
Tile, Inc. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 11:24 am
Readers will remember that the Canadian Supreme Court in Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 affirmed a decision from the Supreme Court in British Columbia and ordered Google to delist a tech company’s entire website worldwide. [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]
28 Oct 2008, 5:52 am
He is a simple Kat who has never felt that a complex test is needed and he mourns the passage of Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 -- a decision that seems to be floating in a sort of precedental limbo, no longer authoritative but still worthy enough to cite. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 3:08 am
The advantage to the applicant of obtaining an Arrow declaration is that the applicant can then rely upon it for the purposes of a Gillette defence (Gillette Safety Razor Co v Anglo-American Trading Co Ltd (1913) 30 RPC 465). [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 9:19 am
Barclays De Zoete Wedd, Inc., 300 N.J. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:04 pm
We have a case comment on the case from Tom Double which can be found here. 5RB had a case report as does RPC. [read post]
