Search for: "Visser v. Visser"
Results 61 - 80
of 346
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2023, 8:18 am
On 16 March 2023, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its judgment following the FRAND trial in InterDigital v Lenovo. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 5:32 am
As an example, it can be a sign of infringement if the marketing strategy induces doctors to prescribe the generic for the omitted therapeutic indication (GlaxoSmithKline v. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 4:47 am
In Optis v Apple, Meade J explained that the date of hand-down itself is not necessarily confidential. [read post]
9 Feb 2023, 7:00 am
Nokia v Oppo [2023] EWHC 23 (Pat) In a new development in the global dispute between Nokia and Oppo that spans seven jurisdictions across Europe and Asia, Mr Justice Meade of the English Patents Court has found that smartphone manufacturer Oppo infringes valid and standard essential Nokia 4G/5G patent EP2981103 on an “allocation of preamble sequences”. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 2:07 am
Less than four months before the launch of the new system, Kluwer IP Law interviewed Véron and asked him how it all started. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
In Meadows v Khan and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton, the Supreme Court set out a six-part test for determining a damages claim for the tort of negligence. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 7:25 am
More from our authors: Vissers Annotated European Patent Convention 2022 Edition by Kaisa Suominen, Peter de Lange, Andrew Rudge€ 105 Guide to EU and UK Pharmaceutical Regulatory Law, Eighth Edition by Sally Shorthose€ 265 The Digital Economy and International Trade: Transnational Data Flows… [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 4:33 pm
Sanofi (C-443/12), Georgetown University v. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 6:57 am
Philips, RG n° 19/02085, see here, and in Paris High Court, Xiaomi v. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 7:44 am
A dissenting judge argued that one of the patents contained plausibly valid claims that recited technical improvements to a graphical user interface (International Business Machines Corp. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 12:15 am
Geofabrics Limited v Fiberweb Geosynthetics Limited [2022] EWHC 2363 (Pat) Geofabrics Limited (“Geofabrics”) has been awarded £13.4 million in damages for patent infringement, concluding a 5 year long dispute with Fiberweb Geosynthetics Limited (“Fiberweb”). [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 4:59 am
” See Schaeffler v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 4:30 am
The judge considered the factors on secondary indications set out by Laddie J in Haberman v Jackel [1999] F.S.R. 683 (and approved by Jacob LJ in Schlumberger v Electromagnetic Geoservices [2010] EWC Civ 819). [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 12:36 am
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg) and C-559/20 (Koch Media GmbH v. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 1:17 am
Recently, the decisions of courts in the United Kingdom (UK) in Unwired Planet v Huawei Technologies (Unwired Planet) and Optis Cellular Technology v Apple (which followed the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet) have given rise to significant debate over the appropriate forum for litigation of disputes in relation to standard essential patents (SEPs). [read post]
27 Aug 2022, 1:55 am
More from our authors: Vissers Annotated European Patent Convention 2022 Edition by Kaisa Suominen, Peter de Lange, Andrew Rudge€ 105 Practical Guide to Successful Intellectual Property Valuation and Transactions by Alexander Puutio€ 135 Internet Law: A Concise Guide to Regulation Around the… [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 8:26 am
., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 6:56 am
Genentech v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 8:19 am
Justice Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s interpretation of Section 315(b) as “another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy” (Thryv, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 8:20 am
The law in this regard was summarised by Arnold J in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA [2014] EWHC 445 (Pat) at [103]: “[103] As Kitchin LJ and Sir Robin Jacob said in their joint judgment in Gedeon Richter plc v Bayer Pharma AG[2012] EWCA Civ 235, [2013] Bus LR D17 at [61], ‘it is trite law that… the older (from the priority date of a patent under attack) a piece of prior art said to render a patent obvious, the harder it is to show… [read post]
