Search for: "Precision Process, Inc. v Smith"
Results 1 - 20
of 133
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2015, 8:09 am
There's definitely something wrong ...The IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 relating to silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here, and this Kat here). [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:00 am
The natural tendency when faced with a deconstructed sentence is to treat the individual particles as elements of precision. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
The precise relationship between them requires this diagram (left) to explain. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 6:12 am
In "The wounded patent survived, was only just infringed, but no injunction", here, fellow Kat Darren wrote about the decision of Birss J in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat), a technically detailed case which amused Merpel, who commented that a case that started off being basically about chemistry ended up being basically about mathematics. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 4:33 am
A related prior dispute between Convatec and Smith & Nephew involving nonsilverised versions of their respective products, Aquacel and Durafiber, and relating to a different patent, was reported by the IPKat here, and the appeal decision upholding the first instance judgement can be read on BAILII.But let us return to the current case Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc & Anor No 2 [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat) (12 December 2013). [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 11:42 am
Airgas, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 9:37 am
Smith v. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 6:58 am
303 Creative may do precisely that, and may even undermine the First Amendment’s tiers of scrutiny in the process, though it need not address Sullivan. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
"The precise nature of the Smiths' claims was unclear. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
We would like to thank Reed Smith’s Kevin Hara for helping to put this together.Daimler AG v. [read post]
10 Sep 2017, 3:07 pm
Julien v. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 9:14 am
Feb. 25, 2021) * * * BONUS COVERAGE #1: Atari Interactive Inc. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:13 pm
Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2013 WL 6157587 at *3-*4 (S.D. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. , 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006). [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir. 2007); Phelps v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 12:42 pm
Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2013 WL 6504427, at *2 (N.D. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 7:45 pm
In Equustek Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2016, 2:32 pm
Last month, Lindsey provided readers of the Drug and Device Law blog with an overview of United Health Services, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 9:58 am
Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2013, 1:35 am
Rather, the case is now like Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. [read post]
