Ad
related to: famous patent lawsuits meaning in english government today
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents): patent of higher lifeforms (CA, 2002) Honeywell v. Sperry Rand (US, 1973) Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (US, 1850) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH (European Court of Justice, C-170/13, 2015), judgement on standard-essential patents.
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.
But the jury awarded the tech giant, which is worth about $3.5 trillion, just $250 in damages - the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States. Apple's attorneys told the court the ...
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.
Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. [1]
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented.Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter".