Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Patent infringement is an unauthorized act of - for example - making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes a patented product. Where the subject-matter of the patent is a process, infringement involves the act of using, offering for sale, selling or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained by the patented process. [1]
35 U.S.C. § 289. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones ...
t. e. In the United States, a valid patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from practicing the invention claimed in that patent. A person who practices that invention without the permission of the patent holder infringes that patent. More specifically, an infringement occurs where the defendant has made, used, sold ...
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. - Supreme Court, 1973. Relation between patent law and antitrust law. Dann v. Johnston - Supreme Court, 1976. Patentability of a claim for a business method patent (but the decision turns on obviousness rather than patent-eligibility). Sakraida v. Ag Pro - Supreme Court, 1976.
The patent phase began on May 7, 2012, with the same jury. [30] By the time of trial, Oracle's patent case comprised claims from two patents, 6,061,520 (Method and system for performing static initialization), [31] (the '520 patent) and RE38104 (Method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code). [32] (the '104 patent ...
Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans. A patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art. Evans v. Hettich. 20 U.S. 453. 1822. Patent Act of 1793, An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans.
35 U.S.C. § 271 (f) Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), [1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T 's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (f). [2]
Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.