Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3]
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 ...
Re-examination procedures: Post-grant administrative processes where the patent office re-evaluates the validity of a patent, often initiated by a third party or the patentee, sometimes without the adversarial format of opposition proceedings.
A re-examination is a proceeding conducted by the patent office after the grant of a patent in which the validity of a patent is re-examined at the request of the patentee or third party, [17] as provided by the applicable law. [27] In some countries, a re-examination system is provided as an alternative or complement to the opposition system ...
An opposition proceeding is an administrative process available under the patent and trademark law of many jurisdictions which allows third parties to formally challenge the validity of a pending patent application ("pre-grant opposition"), of a granted patent ("post-grant opposition"), or of a trademark.
This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law.A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.
The case was decided in favor of MedImmune, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) declared the patent invalid. Genentech appealed the USPTO the ruling and the patent remained valid and enforceable until the appeal was concluded. Genentech prevailed during the reexamination of Cabilly II(2) by the USPTO (1).
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), [1] is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; [2] and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, "[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at ...