Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
While the United States Patent Act does not directly distinguish "direct" and "indirect" infringement, it has become customary to describe infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) as direct infringement, while grouping 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) together as "indirect" ways of infringing a patent. [4] Unlike direct infringement ...
For the purpose of calculating damages in a patent infringement action, the infringing "article of manufacture" may be defined as either an end product sold to a consumer or as a component of that product. 35 U.S.C. §289: The relevant text of the Patent Act encompasses both an end product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product.
The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American paints and coatings company based in Cleveland, Ohio. It is primarily engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of paints, coatings, floorcoverings, and related products with operations in over 120 countries. [ 2 ]
Here's everything you need to know about Sherwin-Williams. All about The Sherwin-Williams Company Founded in 1866 by Henry Sherwin and Edward Williams, the company is headquartered in Cleveland ...
Patent infringement: Majority: Ginsburg Concurrence: Alito (Thomas, Breyer) (in all but part) Dissent: Stevens: 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) (Patent Act) Liability for such unauthorized replication and installation of software in foreign countries must arise under the patent laws of foreign countries.
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]
The doctrine of repair and reconstruction in United States patent law distinguishes between permissible repair of a patented article, which the right of an owner of property to preserve its utility and operability guarantees, and impermissible reconstruction of a patented article, which is patent infringement.
Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, [1] holding (7–2, per Justice Brewer) that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.