The Canadian Abridgment edigests -- Intellectual Property
|
|
- Rosemary Simon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IPY.II.4.c.iii The Canadian Abridgment edigests -- Intellectual Property May 14, 2012 Classification Number: II.4.c.iii Patents -- Validity of patent -- Invention -- Obviousness gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Patent was not invalid on ground of obviousness -- Claims 1, 15 and 16 of patent were not obvious, and therefore, claims 2 to 14 were not obvious -- Invention described in patent was more than just shape, as it disclosed more flexible landing gear -- None of prior art relied on by competitor revealed inventive concept in patent -- Invention was necessary to get from prior art to inventive concept contained in patent -- Invention was not obvious to try, nor was it obvious that proposal would work. IPY.II.4.d.ii Classification Number: II.4.d.ii Patents -- Validity of patent -- Novelty and prior art -- Effect of prior publication gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- Competitor could not rely on defence of practising prior art -- Even if features of L gear were found in prior art, namely O strike documents and N documents, competitor could not rely on prior art defence -- O strike documents were public and available to POSITA -- However, competitor failed to prove that disclosure and enablement conditions were met in case of O strike documents -- file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (1 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
2 Competitor failed to establish that N documents were publicly available -- N documents did not meet two criteria test for anticipation because they did not disclose subject matter which would result in infringement of patent and enablement requirement was not met. IPY.II.4.f.v Classification Number: II.4.f.v Patents -- Validity of patent -- Utility -- Broad claims gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- Claims 1 to 14 and claim 16 of patent were invalid and void on basis of lack of demonstrated utility or overbreadth -- Competitor did not prove that invention would not do what specifications promised it would do -- Utility of embodiment included in claim 15 of patent, namely, landing gear that had front cross piece offset forward, was demonstrated at Canadian filing date -- There was lack of demonstrated utility with respect to embodiment included in claim 16, namely, landing gear that had front cross piece offset backwards -- Inventors did not test landing gear whose front cross piece was offset backwards, so promised advantage was speculative -- To extent that claims 1 and 16 covered any embodiment whereby front cross piece was offset backwards, all dependent claims, except claim 15, were held invalid. IPY.II.5.c.i.B Classification Number: II.5.c.i.B Patents -- Application for patent -- Sufficiency of specification -- Disclosure -- Sufficiency of description file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (2 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
3 gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Patent was not invalid due to insufficient disclosure or lack of indication of best mode -- Patent specification faithfully disclosed invention and its best mode -- Specification was clear enough to permit POSITA to understand general functioning of claimed invention and its main features -- Open-minded POSITA, desirous of putting invention into practice, would have no difficulty complementing teachings of patent with what was already known to skilled and experienced designer. IPY.II.8.b.v Classification Number: II.8.b.v Patents -- Actions for infringement -- When infringement arises -- Importation gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Competitor could not rely on defences of regulatory exception or prior art -- All claims except claim 15 of patent were invalid due to lack of utility or overbreadth. IPY.II.8.c.i Classification Number: II.8.c.i Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Defences -- General principles Regulatory or experimental exception -- Plaintiff patent owner held patent for skid-type landing gear for light helicopters, comprised of 16 claims -- Claim 1 was independent claim, while claims 2 to 16 were dependent claims -- Defendant competitor created two models of landing gear (L gear and P gear), which file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (3 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
4 had novel design compared to competitor's previous gears -- Competitor created L gear, which looked very similar to patent owner's gear, after studying patent owner's gear -- Competitor created P gear by modifying L gear so as to eliminate any alleged patent infringement -- Patent owner brought action for declaration that competitor infringed patent and for damages -- Competitor brought counterclaim for order invalidating patent -- Action and counterclaim allowed in part -- L gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Competitor could not rely on defence of regulatory or experimental exception pursuant to s. 55.2(1) of Patent Act -- Competitor did not construct, use or sell L gear solely for uses reasonably related to development and submission of information required by law -- Competitor used L gear on non-test aircraft and in static display at trade show -- Competitor solicited advanced orders and promoted new model of helicopter with L gear, which went beyond what Act and common law intended by regulatory and experimental exceptions. IPY.II.8.c.ii Classification Number: II.8.c.ii Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Defences -- Lack of essential element Competitor brought counterclaim for order invalidating patent -- Action and counterclaim allowed in part -- Infringement action with respect to P gear was dismissed -- P gear did not infringe patent -- Not all essential elements of patent's claim were present -- P gear did not feature "double curvature", which was one of essential elements of claim 1 -- P gear did not have integrated front cross piece required by claim 1. IPY.II.8.c.vi.C Classification Number: II.8.c.vi.C Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Defences -- Invalidity of patent -- Obviousness file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (4 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
5 gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Patent was not invalid on ground of obviousness -- Claims 1, 15 and 16 of patent were not obvious, and therefore, claims 2 to 14 were not obvious -- Invention described in patent was more than just shape, as it disclosed more flexible landing gear -- None of prior art relied on by competitor revealed inventive concept in patent -- Invention was necessary to get from prior art to inventive concept contained in patent -- Invention was not obvious to try, nor was it obvious that proposal would work. IPY.II.8.c.vi.D Classification Number: II.8.c.vi.D Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Defences -- Invalidity of patent -- Prior publication gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- Competitor could not rely on defence of practising prior art -- Even if features of L gear were found in prior art, namely O strike documents and N documents, competitor could not rely on prior art defence -- O strike documents were public and available to POSITA -- However, competitor failed to prove that disclosure and enablement conditions were met in case of O strike documents -- Competitor failed to establish that N documents were publicly available -- N documents did not meet two criteria test for anticipation because they did not disclose subject matter which would result in infringement of patent and enablement requirement was not met. IPY.II.8.d.i Classification Number: II.8.d.i file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (5 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
6 Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Remedies -- General principles Injunction -- Plaintiff patent owner held patent for skid-type landing gear for light helicopters, comprised of 16 claims -- Claim 1 was independent claim, while claims 2 to 16 were dependent claims -- Defendant competitor created two models of landing gear (L gear and P gear), which had novel design compared to competitor's previous gears -- Competitor created L gear, which looked very similar to patent owner's gear, after studying patent owner's gear -- Competitor created P gear by modifying L gear so as to eliminate any alleged patent infringement -- Patent owner brought action for declaration that competitor infringed patent and for damages -- Competitor brought counterclaim for order invalidating patent -- Action and counterclaim allowed in part -- L gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Claims 1 to 14 and claim 16 of patent were invalid and void on basis of lack of demonstrated utility or overbreadth -- Patent owner was entitled to injunction whereby competitor was permanently enjoined from manufacturing, using or selling L gear, or any similar landing gear that infringed upon claim Owner did not delay in bringing infringement action, and any delay was not unreasonable or were reasonably explained -- Owner's representatives did not act improperly at any time. IPY.II.8.d.ii Classification Number: II.8.d.ii Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Remedies -- Damages gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- Patent owner was not entitled to accounting of profits, but was entitled to general damages, which included compensatory damages -- Landing gear represented only small part of total cost of helicopter -- Calculations of profit would be very complex -- Owner could not recover profits flowing from sales of helicopters equipped with P gear -- Monetary value of individual gear was limited and none was ever incorporated in helicopter sold by competitor, so it was questionable whether accounting of profits should be permitted. IPY.II.8.d.iii file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (6 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
7 Classification Number: II.8.d.iii Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Remedies -- Accounting gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- Patent owner was not entitled to accounting of profits, but was entitled to general damages, which included compensatory damages -- Landing gear represented only small part of total cost of helicopter -- Calculations of profit would be very complex -- Owner could not recover profits flowing from sales of helicopters equipped with P gear -- Monetary value of individual gear was limited and none was ever incorporated in helicopter sold by competitor, so it was questionable whether accounting of profits should be permitted. IPY.II.8.d.iv Classification Number: II.8.d.iv Patents -- Actions for infringement -- Remedies -- Delivery up gear infringed claim 15 of patent -- All essential elements of claim 1 of patent were found in L gear -- Claims 1 to 14 and claim 16 of patent were invalid and void on basis of lack of demonstrated utility or overbreadth -- Competitor was ordered to deliver up all L gears, and to destroy all L gears, except one for purpose of potential use in corresponding litigation in other jurisdictions, within 30 days after final judgment disposed of all appeals. IPY.III.6.b.ii file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (7 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
8 Classification Number: III.6.b.ii Trade marks -- Opposition -- Grounds -- Applicant not person entitled Applicant filed application to register trademark "OPUS" -- Associated services were hotel, lodging and accommodation, conference room, exercise facility, entertainment, facsimile, typing, and providing guests with access to Internet and computers for personal and business use -- Opponent, which used "OPUS" in connection with restaurant, brought opposition proceedings -- One of grounds of opposition was that application did not comply with provisions of s. 30(i) of Trade-marks Act -- Oppositions rejected -- Jurisprudence suggested non-compliance with s. 30(i) could be found in one of two circumstances -- First circumstance was where there were exceptional circumstances, such as bad faith, which rendered applicant's statement that it was satisfied that it was entitled to use applied-for mark untrue -- Second circumstance was where there was prima facie case of non-compliance with federal statute -- In this case, there was no evidence of bad faith on part of applicant -- Neither registrar nor Federal Court had ruled on whether s. 30(i) ground of opposition based on violation of s. 22 of Act was valid ground of opposition -- Even if ground of opposition was valid, opponent failed to adduce any evidence supporting likelihood of depreciation of goodwill which would support violation of s. 22. Euromed Restaurant Ltd. v. Trilogy Properties Corp. (2012), 99 C.P.R. (4th) 445, 2012 TMOB 19, 2012 CarswellNat 526, Natalie de Paulsen Member Member (T.M. Opp. Bd.) [Federal] IPY.III.6.b.vi.A Classification Number: III.6.b.vi.A Trade marks -- Opposition -- Grounds -- Confusion -- General principles Applicant filed application to register trademark "OPUS" -- Associated services were hotel, lodging and accommodation, conference room, exercise facility, entertainment, facsimile, typing, and providing guests with access to Internet and computers for personal and business use -- Opponent, which used "OPUS" in connection with restaurant, brought opposition proceedings -- Oppositions rejected -- Grounds of opposition under ss. 16(1)(a), (b), and (c) of Trade-marks Act were rejected -- For reasons related to ground under s. 12(1)(d) of Act, applicant's trademark was not confusing with opponent's trademarks as of relevant date -- Despite fact that trademarks were identical, difference in parties' services (restaurant vs. hotel services) was sufficient to conclude, on balance of probabilities, that there was no likelihood of confusion. Euromed Restaurant Ltd. v. Trilogy Properties Corp. (2012), 99 C.P.R. (4th) 445, 2012 TMOB 19, 2012 CarswellNat 526, Natalie de Paulsen Member Member (T.M. Opp. Bd.) [Federal] IPY.III.6.b.vi.D file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (8 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
9 Classification Number: III.6.b.vi.D Trade marks -- Opposition -- Grounds -- Confusion -- Nature of wares, services or businesses Applicant filed application to register trademark "OPUS" -- Associated services were hotel, lodging and accommodation, conference room, exercise facility, entertainment, facsimile, typing, and providing guests with access to Internet and computers for personal and business use -- Opponent, which used "OPUS" in connection with restaurant, brought opposition proceedings -- Oppositions rejected -- It was not accepted that services related to provision of food and drink were understood to be part of hotel services -- These services occupied different niches -- Mere fact that parties' services all belonged to general class of hospitality services did not lead to finding that parties' services themselves were similar -- Applicant's evidence supported fact that hotel services and bar and restaurant services were different -- Opponent's own evidence showed that restaurant and hotel services were not typically offered in association with same trademark, which further supported distinction between hotel and restaurant services. Euromed Restaurant Ltd. v. Trilogy Properties Corp. (2012), 99 C.P.R. (4th) 445, 2012 TMOB 19, 2012 CarswellNat 526, Natalie de Paulsen Member Member (T.M. Opp. Bd.) [Federal] IPY.III.6.b.vi.F Classification Number: III.6.b.vi.F Trade marks -- Opposition -- Grounds -- Confusion -- Degree of resemblance in appearance, sound or idea Applicant filed application to register trademark "OPUS" -- Associated services were hotel, lodging and accommodation, conference room, exercise facility, entertainment, facsimile, typing, and providing guests with access to Internet and computers for personal and business use -- Opponent, which used "OPUS" in connection with restaurant, brought opposition proceedings -- Oppositions rejected -- There was only some degree of resemblance between trademarks -- While there was high degree of resemblance visually due to emphasis on "OPUS" component in restaurant trademark, marks were somewhat different sounding due to additional components -- Parties' trademarks did not suggest same idea -- Opponent's trademark suggested restaurant located on particular street or avenue, whereas applicant's trademark gave no such impression -- Degree of resemblance was not sufficient to overcome difference in services of each party -- On balance of probabilities, given surrounding circumstances, there was not reasonable likelihood of confusion -- Differences between marks and their associated services were sufficient to make confusion unlikely. Euromed Restaurant Ltd. v. Trilogy Properties Corp. (2012), 99 C.P.R. (4th) 445, 2012 TMOB 19, 2012 CarswellNat 526, Natalie de Paulsen Member Member (T.M. Opp. Bd.) [Federal] IPY.III.6.b.vii file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (9 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
10 Classification Number: III.6.b.vii Trade marks -- Opposition -- Grounds -- Lack of distinctiveness Applicant filed application to register trade-mark "OPUS" -- Associated services were hotel, lodging and accommodation, conference room, exercise facility, entertainment, facsimile, typing, and providing guests with access to Internet and computers for personal and business use -- Opponent, which used "OPUS" in connection with restaurant, brought opposition proceedings -- Oppositions rejected -- On other grounds of opposition, it was found on balance of probabilities that there was no likelihood of confusion between parties' trademarks and trade names -- Conclusion reached on issue of likelihood of confusion under other grounds of opposition were equally applicable to distinctiveness ground of opposition -- Consequently, applicant's trademark was adapted to distinguish and actually distinguished applicant's services from opponent's services. Euromed Restaurant Ltd. v. Trilogy Properties Corp. (2012), 99 C.P.R. (4th) 445, 2012 TMOB 19, 2012 CarswellNat 526, Natalie de Paulsen Member Member (T.M. Opp. Bd.) [Federal] IPY.III.8.b.ii.A Classification Number: III.8.b.ii.A Trade marks -- Loss of rights -- Expungement -- Grounds -- Non-use Registrant acquired trade-marks BIG STEEL, BIG STEEL MAN and BIG STEEL HOMME (Marks) from courtordered receiver for former owner -- As part of transaction, registrant acquired several other trade-marks as well as over 70 stores employing more than 500 individuals -- Registrant alleged that its efforts to revitalize trademarks, stores and other assets required considerable work, therefore delaying its planned re-launch of BIG STEEL, BIG STEEL MAN and BIG STEEL clothing brands -- Requesting party made request to expunge trade-marks under s. 45 of Trade-marks Act -- Registrations expunged -- It was not established that there was use of Marks with respect to any of registered wares and services within meaning of s. 45 and s. 4 of Act -- There were no special circumstances excusing non-use -- Registrant failed to demonstrate that reasons for nonuse of Marks were beyond its control -- Period of non-use of Marks was approximately eight years, and registrant failed to detail its activities during that period -- Registrant provided insufficient evidence demonstrating serious intention to resume use of Marks in Canada -- Registrant provided no details regarding "considerable work" undertaken during period of non-use. Dean Palmer IP Law IProperty Inc. v. Fairweather Ltd. (2012), 2012 TMOB 15, 2012 CarswellNat 534, Andrew Bene H.O. H.O. (T.M. Opp. Bd.) [Federal] file:///y /Corporate%20Marketing/public/Legal% Files/ /CanAbr-Intellectual htm (10 of 10) [5/14/2012 1:06:12 PM]
Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent?
Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication,
More informationWHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT?
WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT? A patent is a monopoly granted by the government for an invention that works or functions differently from other inventions. It is necessary for the invention
More informationIP system and latest developments in China. Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. June, 2015
IP system and latest developments in China Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. June, 205 Main Content. Brief introduction of China's legal IP framework 2. Patent System in China: bifurcated
More informationPlain Packaging Questionnaire
Plain Packaging Questionnaire National Group: Contributors: Canada Auerbach, Jonathan Ashton, Toni Date: August 16, 2013 Questions Please answer the following questions. For each of questions 1) 10) below,
More informationUnited States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello
United States Author Daniel Fiorello Legal framework The United States offers protection for designs in a formal application procedure resulting in a design patent. Design patents protect the non-functional
More informationLAWSON & PERSSON, P.C.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SERVICES Attorney Michael J. Persson (Mike) is a Registered Patent Attorney and practices primarily in the field of intellectual property law and litigation. The following materials
More informationETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995
ETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions 1. Short
More informationOn 18 th May 2011, the Plaintiffs applied for provisional injunction orders. and successfully obtained the orders on 3 rd June 2011.
Short-term Patent Section 129 of Patents Ordinance (Cap 514) Litigation Page 2 to Page 3 Register appearance of product as trade mark Page 3 to Page 4 Patent Infringement or Not? (RE: High Court Action,
More informationKingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009)
Kingdom of Bhutan The Industrial Property Act enacted on July 13, 2001 entry into force: 2001 (Part III, Sections 17 to 23: May 1, 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title 2. Commencement 3.
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 24 Filed: 05/16/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:499
Case: 1:18-cv-02516 Document #: 24 Filed: 05/16/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:499 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Mon Cheri Bridals, LLC ) ) v. ) Case
More informationBenefits and Dangers of U.S. Provisional Applications
Benefits and Dangers of U.S. Provisional Applications 2012 IP Summer Seminar Kathryn A. Piffat, Ph.D. Senior Associate, Intellectual Property kpiffat@edwardswildman.com July 2012 2012 Edwards Wildman Palmer
More informationADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK GOOGLE INC. V. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2007) BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP V. SUPER DUCK TOURS, LLC 527 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.
More informationCongress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation
Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation America Invents Act Transitions U.S. Patent System from a First-to-Invent to First-Inventor-to-File System, Overhauls Post-Issue Review Proceedings and
More informationINFORMATION FOR INVENTORS SEEKING PATENT PROTECTION
INFORMATION FOR INVENTORS SEEKING PATENT PROTECTION WHAT IS A PATENT? A patent is a legal instrument which enables its owner to exclude others from practising an invention for a limited period of time.
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH A DRAFT BILL OF THE PROPOSED TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Prepared in the light of the complete report made by the Bangladesh Law Commission recommending promulgation
More informationREPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PATENTABILITY 2. Patentable invention 3. Inventions not patentable
More informationOverview of the Patenting Process
Overview of the Patenting Process WILLIAMS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 9200 W Cross Dr Ste 202 Littleton, CO 80123 o. (720) 328-5343 f. (720) 328-5297 www.wip.net info@wip.net What is a Patent? A patent is an
More informationPatent Law in Cambodia
Patent Law in Cambodia September 2012 No 64, St 111 PO Box 172 Phnom Penh Cambodia +855 23 217 510 +855 23 212 740 +855 23 212 840 info@bnglegal.com www.bnglegal.com Patent Law in Cambodia September 2012
More informationCompilation date: 24 February Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, Registered: 27 February 2017
Patents Act 1990 No. 83, 1990 Compilation No. 41 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 This compilation includes commenced amendments
More informationTHE TRADE MARKS ACT, (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009)
THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 2009 (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009) An Act to repeal the existing law and to re-enact the same with amendments and to consolidate the laws relating to trade marks. Whereas
More informationAUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017
AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement
More informationTrade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Trade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Short title... 1 Interpretation... 2 The Register Register of Trade Marks... 3 Application of
More informationIntellectual Property. EMBL Summer Institute 2010 Dusty Gwinn WVURC
Intellectual Property EMBL Summer Institute 2010 Dusty Gwinn WVURC Presentation Outline Intellectual Property Patents Trademarks Copyright Trade Secrets Technology Transfer Tech Marketing Tech Assessment
More informationTop Ten Tips for Dealing with Business Method Patents in Canada
Top Ten Tips for Dealing with Business Method Patents in Canada Sep 01, 2011 Top Ten By Christopher Van Barr Grant Tisdall This resource is sponsored by: By Christopher Van Barr and Grant Tisdall, Gowling
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:16-cv-01186-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SPIN MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, v. HELLODISCOUNTSTORE.COM,
More informationAPPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA:
Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act 9 of 1916 (SA), certain sections only (SA GG 727) came into force on date of publication: 15 April 1916 Only the portions of this Act relating to patents
More informationNovelty. Japan Patent Office
Novelty Japan Patent Office Outline I. Purpose of Novelty II. Procedure of Determining Novelty III. Non-prejudicial Disclosures or Exceptions to Lack of Novelty 1 Outline I. Purpose of Novelty II. Procedure
More informationThis document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.
The patent system Introduction This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes. Patents protect ideas and concepts
More informationInitial Interest Confusion Doctrine: Is the Door Opening in Canada?
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE: The information in this paper should not be relied on as legal advice. Views in the paper may not apply to the circumstances of a specific case, and may no longer be accurate
More informationH. R. ll IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A BILL
G:\M\\MASSIE\MASSIE_0.XML TH CONGRESS D SESSION... (Original Signature of Member) H. R. ll To promote the leadership of the United States in global innovation by establishing a robust patent system that
More informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, No. 22 of 2014
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, 2014 2002 No. 22 of 2014 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More informationpatents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention
1 I. What is a Patent? A patent is a limited right granted by a government (all patents are limited by country) that allows the inventor to stop other people or companies from making, using or selling
More informationTOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017
TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES LTC Harms Japan 2017 SOURCES INTERNATIONAL: TRIPS NATIONAL Statute law: Copyright Act Trade Marks Act Patents Act Procedural law CIVIL REMEDIES Injunctions Interim injunctions Anton
More informationExclusions from patentability 15 Inventions contrary to public order or morality not patentable
New Zealand Patents Act 2013 Public Act 2013 No 68 Date of assent 13 September 2013 Reprint as at 14 September 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Title 2 Commencement Part 1 Preliminary Purposes and overview 3 Purposes
More informationHow patents work An introduction for law students
How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent
More informationHigh-Tech Patent Issues
August 6, 2012 High-Tech Patent Issues On June 4, 2013, the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues released its Legislative Priorities & Executive Actions, designed to protect innovators in
More informationThe Patentability Search
Chapter 5 The Patentability Search 5:1 Introduction 5:2 What Is a Patentability Search? 5:3 Why Order a Patentability Search? 5:3.1 Economics 5:3.2 A Better Application Can Be Prepared 5:3.3 Commercial
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012 AUTHOR: MICHAEL CAINE - PARTNER, DAVIES COLLISON CAVE Michael is a fellow and council member of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys
More informationExamination Practice Respecting Purposive Construction PN
5 Whirlpool at paragraph 49 1 March 8, 2013 To all examiners: Examination Practice Respecting Purposive Construction PN2013-02 In Canada (Attorney General) v Amazon.com Inc., 2011 FCA 328 [Amazon FCA],
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 186 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 17113 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. PANDORA MEDIA,
More informationAct 17 Trademarks Act 2010
ACTS SUPPLEMENT No. 7 3rd September, 2010. ACTS SUPPLEMENT to The Uganda Gazette No. 53 Volume CIII dated 3rd September, 2010. Printed by UPPC, Entebbe, by Order of the Government. Act 17 Trademarks Act
More informationCase 1:16-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND PARTIES
Case 1:16-cv-11565-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS THE LIFE IS GOOD COMPANY, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) C.A. No. ) OOSHIRTS INC., ) Defendant
More informationNo. 30 of Patents and Industrial Designs Act Certified on: 19/1/2001.
No. 30 of 2000. Patents and Industrial Designs Act 2000. Certified on: 19/1/2001. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. No. 30 of 2000. Patents and Industrial Designs Act 2000. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-381 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-381 EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. IBRAHEEM HUSSEIN, d/b/a "MALLOME",
More informationIntellectual Property Reform In Australia
Intellectual Property Reform In Australia January 2013 A summary of important legislative changes PATENTS TRADE MARKS DESIGNS PLANT BREEDER S RIGHTS Robust intellectual property rights delivered efficiently
More informationQ: Will the plaintiff succeed at trial?
Expert Evidence- Validity of Patent Registration Page 2 to Page 3 Patent Infringement or Not? (RE: High Court Action, no. 1371/2011) Copyright Ownership of Tooling-Physical Ownership of Tooling Page 3
More informationNorway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS
Norway By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction? Cases
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 80 Article 1 1
Chapter 80. Trademarks, Brands, etc. Article 1. Trademark Registration Act. 80-1. Definitions. (a) The term "applicant" as used herein means the person filing an application for registration of a trademark
More informationSWITZERLAND: Patent Litigation CHAMBERS 2017 DOING BUSINESS IN BRAZIL: Global Practice Guides. Switzerland LAW & PRACTICE: p.<?> p.3. p.<?> p.
CHAMBERS SWITZERLAND AUSTRIA BRAZIL Patent Litigation Global Practice Guides LAW & PRACTICE: Switzerland p. p.3 Contributed by Fialdini Pestalozzi Einsfeld Advogados Contributed by Pestalozzi The Law
More informationBELIZE TRADE MARKS ACT CHAPTER 257 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE TRADE MARKS ACT CHAPTER 257 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of
More informationTrade Marks Act 1994
Trade Marks Act 1994 An unofficial consolidation of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as amended by: $ the Trade Marks (EC Measures Relating to Counterfeit Goods) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1444) (1 st July 1995);
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332)
TRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332) History Act 46 of 1998 -> 1999 REVISED EDITION -> 2005 REVISED EDITION An Act to establish a new law for trade marks, to enable Singapore to give effect to certain international
More informationIN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ( CIRA ) DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY ( the POLICY )
IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ( CIRA ) DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY ( the POLICY ) Dispute Number: Complainant: Registrant: Disputed Domain
More informationTHE LAW OF DOMAIN NAMES & TRADE-MARKS ON THE INTERNET Sheldon Burshtein
THE LAW OF DOMAIN NAMES & TRADE-MARKS ON THE INTERNET Sheldon Burshtein TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: SECTION 1.1 1.1(a) 1.1(b) 1.1(c) SECTION 1.2 SECTION 1.3 CHAPTER 2: SECTION 2.1 2.1(a) 2.1(b) 2.1(c)
More informationFrance Baker & McKenzie SCP
Baker & McKenzie SCP This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Patents in Europe 2008 April 2008 France By Jean-François Bretonnière and Tania Kern, Baker & McKenzie SCP, Paris 1. What options
More informationArticle 30. Exceptions to Rights Conferred
1 ARTICLE 30... 1 1.1 Text of Article 30... 1 1.2 General... 1 1.3 "limited exceptions"... 2 1.4 "do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent"... 3 1.5 "do not unreasonably prejudice
More informationCentral Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 ACT NO. 43 OF 1958 [ 17th October, 1958.] An Act to provide for the registration and better protection
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationNational Cooperative Research and Production Act of ~ as amended on June 22, 2004 by the ~
4301. Definitions National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 ~ as amended on June 22, 2004 by the ~ Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004 (a) For purposes of this chapter:
More informationBRAND MGT. NWS Page 1 MCKEOWN-BRAND Intellectual Property Newsletters December 2010
BRAND MGT. NWS. 2011-01 Page 1 BRAND MGT. NWS. 2011-01 Intellectual Property Newsletters December 2010 McKeown's Brand Management In Canadian Law Newsletter John McKeown Thomson Reuters Canada Limited
More informationThis document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes.
ELLIS TERRY The Patent System Introduction This document gives a brief summary of the patent application process. The attached chart shows the most common patent protection routes. Patents protect ideas
More informationOUTLINE OF TRADEMARK SYSTEM IN JAPAN
OUTLINE OF TRADEMARK SYSTEM IN JAPAN 1. General 1 2. Filing Requirements 1 3. Search 2 4. Examination 2 5. Appeal against Decision for Rejection 3 6. Opposition 3 7. Trials for Invalidation or Cancellation
More informationTitle: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness
Question Q217 National Group: China Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Contributors: [Heather Lin, Gavin Jia, Shengguang Zhong, Richard Wang, Jonathan Miao, Wilson Zhang,
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationTrade Marks Ordinance (New Version),
Trade Marks Ordinance (New Version), 5732 1972 (of May 15, 1972) * TABLE OF CONTENTS Articles Chapter I: Chapter II: Chapter III: Chapter IV: Chapter V: Chapter VI: Interpretation Definitions... 1 Applicability
More informationPatent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview
Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent
More informationCanada Intellectual property enforcement
Sponsored by Statistical data supplied by Canada Intellectual property enforcement This article first appeared in IP Value 2004, Building and enforcing intellectual property value, An international guide
More informationDrafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark
More information10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson
10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson eramage@bakerdonelson.com Patent Reform Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16 th Melange of changes (major
More informationZimbabwe Act To amend the Trade Marks Act [Chapter 26:04]
Zimbabwe Act To amend the Trade Marks Act [Chapter 26:04] Enacted by the President and the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Short Title and Date of Commencement 1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Trade Marks Amendment
More informationRecognized Group Thailand Report
Recognized Group Thailand Report Asian Patent Attorneys Association 58 th Council Meeting Jeju, Korea Updates Paris Convention Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Madrid Protocol Number of Applications Classified
More informationRemedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General
VI. Remedies: Injunction and Damages 1. General If infringement is found and validity of the patent is not denied by the court, then the patentee is entitled to the remedies of both injunction and damages
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO:
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: JOHN M. BEGAKIS (Bar No. ) john@altviewlawgroup.com JASON W. BROOKS (Bar No. ) Jason@altviewlawgroup.com ALTVIEW LAW GROUP, LLP 00 Wilshire Boulevard,
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Civil Action No.
Case 1:17-cv-04559 Document 1 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COTR INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. MAKEUP ERASER GROUP, LLC (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
More informationSelection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection
Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by
More informationInformation and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University
Information and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University I. Steps in the Process of Declaration of Your Invention or Creation. A. It is the policy of East
More informationTRIPS Article 28 Rights Conferred. 1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:
TRIPS Article 28 Rights Conferred 1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights: (a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having the owner
More informationFrequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark?
Frequently Asked Questions Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark? Is a distinctive sign that serves to distinguish the goods and/or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises.
More informationPatent Act, B.E (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E (1999) Translation
Patent Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) As Amended until Patent Act (No.3), B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 11th day of March, B.E. 2522; Being the 34th year of the present Reign
More informationPOTENTIAL PATENT APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
POTENTIAL PATENT APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE Prepared by: Date: Your reference for this matter: _ Correspondence information (Questions 1 2) 1. Please provide the correspondence information of the person(s)
More information- Relationship between Designs and Trademarks-
Special Topic APAA Design Committee Questionnaire (2007) - Relationship between Designs and Trademarks- Country Name : Sri Lanka : Surani Wickramaratna Q1. What subject is protected under the Design (Patent)
More informationIndexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. Federal Court O'Keefe, J. September 5, 2014.
The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Global Technologies Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada ULC (plaintiffs) v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (defendant) (T-2051-10; 2014 FC 844) Indexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v.
More informationLEGAL SYSTEMS IN ASEAN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 5 BUSINESS LAW (PART 4): THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LEGAL SYSTEMS IN ASEAN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 5 BUSINESS LAW (PART 4): THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Gerald TAN Senior Associate, OC Queen Street LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS A. FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL
More informationGermany. Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs. McDermott Will & Emery
GERMANY Germany Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs Patent Enforcement Proceedings 1 Lawsuits and courts What legal or administrative proceedings are available for enforcing patent rights against an infringer?
More informationSoftware Licence Agreement
@tesseract.co.uk HP12 3RE United Kingdom Software Licence Agreement Cranbox Limited T/A Tesseract 1. Licence 1.1 We hereby grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable and limited license for the term of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN cchan@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan
More informationChemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus
Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION TO CHEMICAL PATENT PRACTICE: SETTING THE STAGE FOR DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RISK OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND ENHANCING CHANCES OF INFRINGEMENT,
More informationCase 1:11-cv REB Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-00636-REB Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 5 Lane M. Chitwood, ISB No. 8577 lchitwood@parsonsbehle.com Peter M. Midgley, ISB No. 6913 pmidgley@parsonsbehle.com John N. Zarian, ISB No. 7390
More informationRUSSIA Patent Law #3517-I of September 23, 1992, as amended by the federal law 22-FZ of February 7, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: March 11, 2003
RUSSIA Patent Law #3517-I of September 23, 1992, as amended by the federal law 22-FZ of February 7, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: March 11, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I General Provisions Article 1 Relations
More informationCustomized IDX RETS Solutions Data Information Sheet
Office Use Only: License#: CSTL Customized IDX RETS Solutions Data Information Sheet Set up fee: $500 Agent/Member : Agent MLS User ID: Brokerage : Third Party Vendor: URL(s): Primary: URL#2: URL#3: URL#4:
More informationIP DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGAPORE. 1. Trade Mark Practice Developments in Singapore
1 APAA 58TH COUNCIL MEETING 27 TH -31 ST OCTOBER 2012, CHIANG MAI, THAILAND RECOGNISED SINGAPORE GROUP TRADE MARKS COMMITTEE REPORT BY SOH KAR LIANG / TASNEEM HAQ IP DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGAPORE 1. Trade
More informationCase 1:09-md SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592
Case 1:09-md-02118-SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: CYCLOBENZAPRINE ) HYDROCHLORIDE EXTENDED ) Civ. No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v. COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FELIX SORKIN and GENERAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plaintiff, Case No. v. VSTRUCTURAL, LLC AND SGI HOLDINGS, LLC Defendants. COMPLAINT JURY
More informationThe Novelty Requirement I
The Novelty Requirement I Class Notes: February 3, 2003 Law 677 Patent Law Spring 2003 Professor Wagner 1. The Date of Invention Today s s Agenda 2. Anticipation 3. "Known or Used" 4. "Patented or Described
More informationCase 2:12-cv TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:12-cv-01124-TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16 Joseph Pia, joe.pia@padrm.com (9945) Tyson B. Snow tsnow@padrm.com (10747) Fili Sagapulete fili@padrm.com (13348) PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD
More informationU.S. Design Patent Protection. Finnish Patent Office April 10, 2018
U.S. Design Patent Protection Finnish Patent Office April 10, 2018 Design Patent Protection Presentation Overview What are Design Patents? General Requirements Examples Examination Process 3 What is a
More informationCase 5:14-cv BLF Document 293 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-blf Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FITNESS ANYWHERE LLC, Plaintiff, v. WOSS ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-blf
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 COMPLAINT
Case :-cv-00-r-as Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP Noah R. Balch (SBN noah.balch@kattenlaw.com Joanna M. Hall (SBN 0 joanna.hall@kattenlaw.com 0 Century Park East, Suite
More informationWU contract # NON EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT
WU contract # 005900- NON EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS NON EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT (the Agreement ) is made and entered into, as of the last of the dates shown in the signature block below ( Effective
More informationCase 2:12-cv JCM-VCF Document 1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-0-jcm-vcf Document Filed // Page of R. Scott Weide, Esq. Nevada Bar No. sweide@weidemiller.com Ryan Gile, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 0 rgile@weidemiller.com Kendelee L. Works, Esq. Nevada Bar No. kworks@weidemiller.com
More information