Search for: "D. Kappos"
Results 221 - 240
of 273
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2011, 5:10 am
American Buddha (Copyright Litigation Blog) (1709 Blog) District Court E D Pennsylvania: Oprah Winfrey wins copyright battle over chubbiest US President: Harris v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 4:56 am
(GRAY on Claims) District Court E D Texas finds Applied Medical Resources liable for infringement of Covidien’s surgical device patent (Patent Docs) District Court E D Texas limits number of patent claims and prior art references asserted in case: SynQor, Inc v Artesyn Technologies, Inc et al (Docket Report) District Court W D Pennsylvania: Non-practising entity entitled to permanent injunction where infringed patent was the subject of prior exclusive license:… [read post]
18 May 2010, 1:10 am
(IPblog) US General – Decisions District Court E D Wisconsin: Can a trade secret licensee state a claim? [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:29 am
[…]Id. at *21 (internal citations omitted).d. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 11:48 pm
(Chicago IP Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinois: Court will not rewrite claims to avoid nonsensical results: Viskase Cos., Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am
Kappos (Awaken IP) District Court N D Illinois: False marking claims not barred by earlier-filed case involving the same clients: Simonian v. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:25 am
Medico (Filewrapper) BPAI finds claim indefinite and not directed to patentable subject under Bilski: Ex parte Hemmat (GRAY On Claims) District Court N D Illinois: KSR obviousness does not require prior art from the same field: Se-Kure Controls, Inc v Diam USA, Inc (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) District Court E D Texas finds plaintiff has standing; agreement transfers ownership and simultaneously a conditional purchase by transferor from transferee: Balsam Coffee… [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:25 am
Medico (Filewrapper) BPAI finds claim indefinite and not directed to patentable subject under Bilski: Ex parte Hemmat (GRAY On Claims) District Court N D Illinois: KSR obviousness does not require prior art from the same field: Se-Kure Controls, Inc v Diam USA, Inc (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) District Court E D Texas finds plaintiff has standing; agreement transfers ownership and simultaneously a conditional purchase by transferor from transferee: Balsam Coffee… [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 4:14 pm
In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.Id. at *15.Considering Elements as an Ordered CombinationConsidered “as an ordered combination,” the computer components of petitioner’s method “ad[d] nothing . . . that [read post]
4 May 2010, 9:03 am
I know this is an open-ended question, and maybe you can take it where you’d like. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 5:51 am
Castro v Cartwright (TTABlog) TTAB reverses 2(e)(2) refusal of PROFUMO DE FIRENZE for perfume, finding double entendre: In re Atelier Profumo Artistico Firenze SrL (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB affirms failure-to-function refusal of STRENGTH IN DATA for brochures: In re ImClone Systems Incorporated (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB affirms 2(d) r [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 3:00 am
(IP Law Blog) (IP Law Blog) US Patents David Kappos and the impact of KSR – a unique opportunity for our profession (Patently-O) Patent litigation insurance: good for the defendant, better for the insurer (PatLit) ED Patent filings update/another Federal Circuit venue opinion (EDTexweblog.com) Google creates its own dictionary – will it be used by patent practitioners? [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Excess Copyright) (IPKat) (Ars Technica) (IAM) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Technology Transfer Tactics) (The IP Factor) (Patent Baristas) (ISinIP) (Managing Intellectual Property) GSK, Tafas file petitions for rehearing in Tafas v Doll (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) Entire Federal Circuit hears argument on whether 271(f) applies to method claims: Cardiac Pacemakers v St Jude Medical (Inventive Step) District Court E… [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Excess Copyright) (IPKat) (Ars Technica) (IAM) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Technology Transfer Tactics) (The IP Factor) (Patent Baristas) (ISinIP) (Managing Intellectual Property) GSK, Tafas file petitions for rehearing in Tafas v Doll (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) Entire Federal Circuit hears argument on whether 271(f) applies to method claims: Cardiac Pacemakers v St Jude Medical (Inventive Step) District Court E… [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 5:13 pm
Kappos, finding that the method claims were not tied to a particular machine and also failed to transform an article to a different state or thing. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 2:40 pm
Supp. 2d 1120 (D. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:59 am
"The R&D paradigms have changed, the function of IP is shifting, but patent systems have failed to adapt and develop in consequence. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 5:21 am
Finally, although expensive, a § 145 civil action can reset the entire record and remove all deference (see the recent Kappos v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:49 am
Kappos – would have underscored the risks of offering such a vague and unspecified piece of guidance as this. [read post]
27 May 2010, 3:20 am
Lupin Pharma (Patent Baristas) Metvixia (Methyl aminolevulinate) – US: Structurally similar drug with different biological properties meets criteria for term extension: Photocure ASA v Kappos (Patent Baristas) Mirapex (Pramipexole) – US: Patent infringement complaint based on ANDA filing: Sandoz Inc. v. [read post]
