Search for: "US INVENTOR, INC." Results 861 - 880 of 1,898
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Aug 2013, 5:46 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The magistrate turned to the expected audience for the articles, which the publishers claimed included inventors and patent attorneys. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 4:00 am by Paula Bremner
In some ways the notional “person skilled in the art” (who by definition is not inventive) is expected to know more, and earlier, than the inventors themselves (who are obviously inventive). [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 12:00 am
., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 2:56 pm
Myriad Genetics, Inc., decided on June 13, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that isolated natural genes (DNA) are not patentable. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 7:32 am by Pilar G. Kraman
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]
26 Jun 2013, 9:29 am by Sarah Tran
Prior to law school, Andria worked as a Clinical Research Technician at RCTS Labs, Inc. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:45 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
David and the inventors Jewish heritage, it was clearthat counsel was attempting to align his “religious preferencewith that of the jurors and employs an ‘us v. them’mentality–i.e., ‘we are Christian and they are Jewish. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:34 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
AgPro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 1:21 pm by Lyle Denniston
  The initial patent had run out, but the U.S. licensee — Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 9:42 pm
 This is Norman's take on the decision, flavoured with some delicious thoughts of his own: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc 12–398, 569 U. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 9:36 pm by Jason Rantanen
In Australia the patentability of such materials has recently been confirmed by the Federal Court of Australia in Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc [2013] FCA 65 (15 February 2013)[3], see Vaughn Barlow, CIPA, March 2013, 122-123. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 7:12 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 12:15 am
The doctrine of inherent anticipation (particularly after Schering Co. v Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. et Al., commented here - see also, in the UK, Merrell Dow v H N Norton & Co), may lead to similar distortions. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 6:00 pm by Jason Rantanen
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]