Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Patricia Era Bath (November 4, 1942 – May 30, 2019) was an American ophthalmologist and humanitarian. She became the first female member of the Jules Stein Eye Institute , the first woman to lead a post-graduate training program in ophthalmology , and the first woman elected to the honorary staff of the UCLA Medical Center .
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014), was a 2014 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the interpretation (clarity, definiteness) of patent claims in U.S. patents.
Engineer Marian Croak and ophthalmologist Dr. Patricia Bath will be the first Black women inductees into The National Inventors Hall of Fame.
Bowman v. Monsanto - Supreme Court, 2012. Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics - Supreme Court, 2013. Invalidated patents on naturally occurring DNA segments, but not on cDNA.
The Court found contributory infringement for the sale of the defendant's ink with patent owner's machine (inherency doctrine). Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co, v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co. 225 U.S. 604: 1912: Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell: 229 U.S. 1: 1913: Patent right does not include right to dictate the price of the product. The Fair v. Kohler Die ...
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits. [1]While a 1957 Supreme Court ruling had determined that patent infringement cases were to be tried in the state within which the defendant was incorporated, subsequent changes to Judiciary and Judicial Procedure implemented by ...
A multimillion-pound legal battle between rival developers of Covid-19 jabs over vaccine technology patents is set to continue at the Court of Appeal. In July, a High Court judge delivered a mixed ...
Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act. [1]