Search for: "US INVENTOR, INC."
Results 181 - 200
of 1,908
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2021, 2:55 pm
Some background: The asserted patents arise out of research conducted by inventors at a company called QuantaLife, Inc. [read post]
26 May 2021, 12:06 pm
See, e.g., Arachnid, Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2021, 3:28 am
TTABlogger comment: The patent statute requires that an applicant "set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. [read post]
2 May 2021, 1:41 pm
Hologic Inc. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 1:39 pm
by Dennis Crouch Bio-Rad Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 8:48 am
Dropbox, Inc. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 10:51 am
Oracle America, Inc., holding that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java API was a fair use and therefore not copyright infringement. [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm
As such, because the inventors’ CRISPR work was done while under the employment of Harvard, and done using Harvard facilities, their patent rights in the CRISPR work would have transferred automatically to Harvard as soon as they vested. [read post]
24 Mar 2021, 7:24 am
Global Patent Applications and the China Story A utility model is a unique form of patent right granted by a state or jurisdiction to an inventor or the inventor’s assignee for a fixed period of time. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 10:22 am
D. 834 illustrates the problem: the product was protected by patents, which were assigned by the inventor to the plaintiff company which he set up to exploit them, but the name “linoleum”, coined by the inventor to denote the product, was used to denote the substance not (exclusively) the source of the substance, so the defendant could not be stopped from marketing his product as “Linoleum floor-Cloth” after the patents expired. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 10:22 am
D. 834 illustrates the problem: the product was protected by patents, which were assigned by the inventor to the plaintiff company which he set up to exploit them, but the name “linoleum”, coined by the inventor to denote the product, was used to denote the substance not (exclusively) the source of the substance, so the defendant could not be stopped from marketing his product as “Linoleum floor-Cloth” after the patents expired. [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
In Salt Canada Inc. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 5:55 am
Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. is the controlling case. [read post]
13 Mar 2021, 1:09 pm
Septodont Inc., 34 Fed. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 12:13 pm
The named applicant is View, Inc., and the patent includes four listed inventors. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 9:17 am
Prometheus Laboratories Inc. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 8:37 am
Enco Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2021, 9:04 am
Amicus brief of Ameranth, Inc. submitted. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 9:06 am
Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2021, 9:52 am
by Dennis crouch Sandoz Inc. v. [read post]
