Remove 2003 Remove Licensing Remove Patent Infringement
article thumbnail

Manhattan Jury Orders Nintendo to Pay $30 Million for Patent Infringement

Greenspoon Marder LLP

million in damages to Tomita Technologies for patent infringement. After leaving the company, he applied for the patent in issue in March of 2003, and the patent was issued in 2008 licensed to Tomita Technologies. A Manhattan jury earlier this month ordered Nintendo to pay $30.2 In 2012, U.S.

article thumbnail

Tier I, Tier II, Time for Experts; The Curious Case of Scientific Advisers, Party Expert and Two Tiered Confidentiality Club 

SpicyIP

This case pertains to patent infringement concerning two process patents related to the fungicide Azoxystrobin. However, employees directly involved in commercial licensing negotiations are more likely to misuse or inadvertently disclose confidential information. vs. GSP Crop Science Private Limited (See here ).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Understanding Freedom to Operate (FTO) Concerning IP & Patents

Kashishipr

Three pharmaceutical companies, including Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Micromet AG, and Cambridge Antibody Technology (now acquired by AstraZeneca), in September 2003 announced signing a non-exclusive cross-license agreement. Patents have a limited protection period.

IP 105
article thumbnail

Plagiarism Police come for Winston & Strawn

Patently-O

Winston Strawn Plagiarism Complaint Winston Strawn Plagiarism Attachments I recall being asked to draft my first patent infringement complaint back in early 2003 – a few months after graduating from law school. Similar issues also came up in the patent information disclosure statement cases a decade ago.

article thumbnail

Induced Infringement and the Section 286 Statute of Limitations

Patently-O

Through its acquisition of BioVeris Corporation, Roche Diagnostics became the owner of various patents relating to immunoassays employing electrochemiluminescence (“ECL”). The decision raises interesting issues relating to induced patent infringement and the interpretation of a licensing provision. 2d 345 (Fed.

article thumbnail

The Phantom Menace: Federal Circuit Upholds Judge Connolly’s Investigative Powers Evan After Dismissal

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch In Backertop Licensing LLC v. Chief Judge Connolly of the District of Delaware had initiated an inquiry into dozens of patent infringement cases filed by plaintiff LLCs associated with IP Edge, a patent monetization firm, and Mavexar, an affiliated consulting shop. 2003) (witness testimony important).

article thumbnail

Guest Post by Prof. Contreras: HTC v. Ericsson – Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fifth Circuit Doesn’t Know What FRAND Means Either

Patently-O

The decision is significant as it is the first by the Fifth Circuit to address the licensing of standards-essential patents and the meaning of “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) licensing terms, adding to the growing body of jurisprudence already issued by the Third, Ninth and Federal Circuits in this area.