Remove 2003 Remove Ownership Remove Patent Infringement
article thumbnail

Patents and Cannabis

More Than Your Mark

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) owns a patent for a cannabis-related invention. In July of this year, United Cannabis Corporation (UCANN) filed a patent infringement action in federal court in Colorado against Pure Hemp Collective Inc. United Cannabis Corp. Pure Hemp Collective Inc. 1:18-cv-01922-NYW (D.Colo)).

Patent 52
article thumbnail

Guest Post: Third-Party Litigation Funding: Disclosure to Courts, Congress, and the Executive

Patently-O

Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business. [2] 2] Virtually nonexistent in the patent space in the U.S. 20] (The orders apply to all parties and litigation before his Court, not just parties to patent disputes, but do not extend, as yet, to the other sitting judges there.) 2d 217, 221 (Ohio 2003).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

Patently-O

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). Canary Connect, Inc. , Ashcroft , 353 F.3d

article thumbnail

IP infringement in Metaverse

IIPRD

It identifies the product of that company and recognizes its own and gives some rights to ownership that can be enforced. Patent Infringement. It also protects the product from unauthorized use by a third party. This can a lesson for the companies interested in the metaverse. Conclusion and Suggestions.

IP 52
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.