Ads
related to: patent no 6 469
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lincoln was at times a patent attorney and was familiar with the patent application process as well as patent lawsuit proceedings. Among his notable patent law experiences as a result of his patent was litigation over the mechanical reaper; both he and his future Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, provided counsel for John Henry Manny, an ...
469: 48.4%: 2002—2025: 22.7: 43: 6.4 ... (patents pending) as there is no guarantee that a patent application actually describes a novel invention until the patent ...
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act; Long title: An Act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise the procedures for new drug applications, to amend title 35, United States Code, to authorize the extension of the patents for certain regulated products, and for other purposes.
Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version). [6] (In 2020, the European Commission published an evaluation of Regs. 469/2009 and 1610/96.)
The Trademark Act of 1905 imports the rules of practice and procedure that govern appeals of patent applications, and so authorizes unsuccessful trademark applicants to obtain a remedy by bill in equity, as the Revised Statutes provide to unsuccessful patent applicants. Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty: 264 U.S. 359: April 7, 1924: Substantive: Right ...
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...
Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, [1] set forth 14 years earlier in Patent Act of 1952 and codified as 35 U.S.C. § 103.