Search for: "DONALDSON v. MEANS" Results 1 - 20 of 99
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2010, 8:47 am
In the first appeal, the merits weren't reached because the Board rejected the hybrid method/system claims as indefinite under IPXL Holdings v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 12:52 pm by RatnerPrestia
In re Donaldson confirmed that for a means-plus-function claim to be valid, appropriate “means” must be provided in the specification. [read post]
9 Aug 2015, 8:08 pm by Dennis Crouch
Tomorrow I’ll write about the design patent functionality questions in Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 5:49 am by Riana Harvey
Further case law has also illustrated that the attractiveness of a design, the intentions of the author, the design’s visual effect, symbolism and commercial success in the marketplace will not be factors in a finding of eligibility for copyright protection (Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing Co).In relation to derivative works, it is stated that the registration of such works would not cover any previously published or registered works (17 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 8:01 am
Here is the abstract.In 1903, in Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing, Justice Holmes famously concluded that judges are ill-suited to make merit judgments when determining the eligibility for protection of works. [read post]
31 May 2013, 7:24 am
In Case T‑396/11, ultra air v OHIM - Donaldson Filtration Deutschland, the General Court examined the applicability of the concept of 'abuse of rights', in relation to an application for a declaration of invalidity of a Community trade mark, under Articles 56(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 207/2009. [read post]