Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/69043682-Olive-olive-p-a-intellectual-property-law.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:48:25+00:00

Document:
Download "OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW"
1 OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA (919) GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement typically is analyzed in one of three contexts: when a patent owner is considering suing a competitor for patent infringement; when someone is considering starting a new business or beginning to manufacture, sell, or import a new product or use a new method, and wants to be sure the product or method will not infringe the rights of others; and when someone has been accused of infringement. Regardless of the context in which the question arises, the same rules govern the analysis. A. The Law Governing Patents and Patent Infringement The laws governing patents and the rights of patent owners are set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code ( U.S.C. ). 35 U.S.C. Sec. 282 establishes a presumption of validity for all patents issued by the United States Patent Office: A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity. The burden of establishing invalidity requires proof of invalidity by clear and convincing evidence or its equivalent. Even when prior art not previously considered by the Patent Office has been located, the burden of proof does not shift. However, the burden may be met more easily in such cases. 35 U.S.C. Sec. 282 also sets out the available defenses to an accusation of infringement: The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded: (1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability. (2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title [which sets out the conditions for patentability, Olive & Olive, P.A All rights reserved.
Chapter 1: COOKBOOK PROCEDURE AND BLUEPRINT FOR DESIGNING AROUND : AVOIDING LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Literal Infringement Generally Claim Construction Under Markman 1. Claim Interpretation Before Markman 2.
Infringement, Doctrine of equivalents & prosecution history estoppel Mr.Sumesh Reddy- 1 Patent rights Right to exclude others A patent is not a grant of a right to make, use or sell. Atlas Powder Co. v.
Page 1 of 6 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1561 THE TORO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC. and WCI OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
PRUDENT PATENT PROSECUTION UNDER FESTO By: Robert H. Resis I. INTRODUCTION On May 28, 2002, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kabushiki Co, 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.
Charles A. Szypszak, Orr & Reno, PA, Concord, NH, Jack Alton Kanz, Harris, Tucker & Hardin, Dallas, TX, for Thermalloy, Inc.
Johnson & Johnston Associates, Inc. v. R.E. Service Co.
Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office November 3, 1999 Morning Session Answers 1. ANSWER: (E). MPEP 1502.01, and 201.04(b) [p. 200-14]. 2.
John C. Lenahan, Jeffrey D. Sanok, Michael I. Coe, Evenson, McKeown, Edwards & Lenahan, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH, Plaintiff. v. DANA CORPORATION, et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 00-803-A Feb. 20, 2001.
IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc. & Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co.
Toni Lee Bonney, Gary A. Ahrens, Elizabeth H. Schoettly, Michael, Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff or petitioner.
Case 6:12-cv-00141-LED Document 226 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 3805 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC, Plaintiff, vs.
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp.
The Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.
03-1269,-1286 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT EDWARD H. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWH CORPORATION, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., AND LOFTON CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants.
T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Recent U.S. Case Law and Developments (Patents) John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C.
, HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC. and KCI THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1314, -1315 HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC. and KCI THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.
Preparing A Patent Application Henry Estévez, Ph.D. Registered Patent Attorney Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A. Orlando, Melbourne, and Jacksonville, Florida Is The Invention Patentable?

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.