Search for: "Waterman v. Mackenzie" Results 1 - 6 of 6
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2018, 11:45 am
  Mylan et al argued that the IPR could continue because Allergan was the "true owner of the challenged patents".Substance matters more than form and if the substance of the transaction has a party retaining all substantial rights under the patent, then they are a "patent owner" irrespective of whether the transaction characterizes them as such (see Waterman v Mackenzie (1891); Speedplay v Behop (2000); Alfred E Mann Foundation… [read post]