When.com Web Search

  1. Ads

    related to: reexamination patent infringement examples

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Reexamination - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination

    A request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent. To request a reexamination, one must submit a "request for reexamination" which includes (1) a statement pointing out each "substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications; (2) an identification and explanation for every claim for which ...

  3. Inter partes review - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_partes_review

    For example, Apple had sought an inter partes review of patents owned by VirnetX; VirnetX had taken Apple to court over patent violations, which found in favor for VirnetX and resulted in Apple fines over US$1 billion. Should Apple succeed in its inter partes review, it would be able to nullify the decision of this patent infringement suits. [7]

  4. List of United States patent law cases - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Multiple lawsuits over several patents relating to MP3 encoding and compression technologies. Ariad v. Lilly - 2006. Broad infringement case related to a ubiquitous transcription factor. EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. - Supreme Court, 2006. Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement.

  5. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._i4i_Ltd...

    This case in widely considered as a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit by a patent troll, underscoring the need for a reform of the US patent law. [ 1 ] The case was a patent dispute between small Toronto -based company i4i Ltd. Partnership and Microsoft for infringement of a patent regarding custom XML encoding in Microsoft Word , a feature ...

  6. Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Product Ltd - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improver_Corp_v_Remington...

    The earlier case of Catnic Components Ltd. v Hill & Smith Ltd., Lord Diplock had established the principle that patents were to be read in a "purposive" manner. The question to be answered in establishing infringement, as formulated by Lord Diplock, was a complex, multi-part enquiry.

  7. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_Inc._v._MercExchange...

    eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]