Search for: "US INVENTOR, INC."
Results 261 - 280
of 1,908
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2021, 1:39 pm
by Dennis Crouch Bio-Rad Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 12:38 pm
In an interesting decision, OBX-Stock, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 6:07 am
AngioDynamics, Inc., 450 F. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 3:38 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 12:20 pm
Hospira, Inc. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 10:56 am
Teleflex Inc. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 1:24 am
The outcome:Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:17 am
Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 106 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 7:32 am
Clair, [its co-owner, and the patents' inventor], were aware of the existence of products embodying "technology similar to that for which [the patentee] holds a patent and [which] uses that similar technology to accomplish a similar objective." [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 11:17 am
This damages case focuses on when lost-sales outside of the US can be captured under US law. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 8:47 pm
Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 11:58 am
In Omni MedSci, 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]
18 Dec 2007, 9:05 pm
After that acquisition, Guilford was renamed MGI GP, Inc. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 11:53 am
., Inc, Supreme Court No. 10-1150, to consider whether to set limits on when inventors can patent medical diagnostic tests. [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 Dec 2015, 11:40 am
’”Insite Vision Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 10:09 am
Sunovion Pharms., Inc., 715 F.3d 1351 (Fed. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 10:53 am
Cray, Inc. [read post]
