Over the past few decades, many high-profile patent infringement cases have been litigated in the U.S. courts. After years of judicial practice and academic research, the U.S. has developed a set of legal doctrines on almost any patent-related dispute. These doctrines, in the form of case law, have a significant impact upon other countries’ patent litigation practice. For example, almost all the major judicial doctrines in the U.S. patent litigation practice have their respective counterparts in China’s patent litigation practice, such as literal infringement, contributory infringement, the doctrine of equivalents and the prosecution estoppel.1 Meanwhile, China has also adopted some of the doctrines to better serve the Chinese society. The first part of this section discusses the structure of Chinese judicial and administrative systems that handle patent litigation....
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
The Information Commissioner has requested a meeting with the Government over its plans to work with credit reference agencies to combat benefit fraud.
Skype is engaged in a battle to keep its brand. Sky – the broadcaster which also is an Internet service provider and telephone service provider – claims that the Voice over Internet Protocol company’s brand is too similar to its own.
Dr. Michael Blaine Brooks, of the Law Office of Michael Blaine Brooks, delivered a presentation on "Advancing US Cases via the PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway" to the Ventura County (CA) Bar Association recently.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an insurer owed a policy holder a defense under a general liability policy where the alleged patent infringement constituted "advertising injury" under the definitions of the policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expressed its belief in the continued validity of its "machine-or-transformation" test in wake of the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision, but left the fight for the patent eligibility of medical treatment claims for another day. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc. Case Nos. 09-1437, 1438 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 2, 2010) (Gajarsa, J.).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expressed its belief in the continued validity of its "machine-or-transformation" test in wake of the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision, but left the fight for the patent eligibility of medical treatment claims for another day. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc. Case Nos. 09-1437, 1438 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 2, 2010) (Gajarsa, J.).
Recognizing, protecting and exploiting Intellectual Property ("IP") assets has never been more important to businesses. While capturing the benefits of innovation can make the difference between profitability and demise, there are numerous and competing priorities on companies' time, money, and attention that make doing so a challenge.
This case surrounded two licences to make and sell Umbro’s football clothes in the US. One licence (to Dick’s) was for the exclusive sale of on-field sports clothing and the other (to Hudson Bay) was for the exclusive sale of off-field clothing.
