Remove 2003 Remove Patent Remove Patent Infringement
article thumbnail

Health Tracker Systems Alleges Garmin’s Smartwatch Infringes Patents

JD Supra Law

Garmin”) for patent infringement in the Central District of California on March 6, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that Garmin’s Forerunner 45/45S smartwatch infringes U.S. 6,582,380, entitled “System and Method of Monitoring and Modifying Human Activity-Based Behavior,” which issued in 2003, and expired in June 2021.

Patent 96
article thumbnail

Logos Remain Relevant: Source Confusion and Design Patent Infringement

Patently-O

This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis. Trademark Infringement The standards for proving design patent infringement and trademark infringement differ significantly regarding the relevance of consumer confusion about product source.

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

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. filed a suit against the defendant, GSP Crop Science Private Limited, alleging infringement of the following patents the Indian Patent No. vs. GSP Crop Science Private Limited (See here ).

article thumbnail

Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on IPR: Tipping the Scales of Patent Law? Part II

SpicyIP

In the first part of this post, I had covered the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s Report recommendations on amendments to Section 3 of the Patents Act. Flexibility in Procedure or Bending Over Backwards for Higher Patent Filing? The recommendations on making procedural norms of patent filing less stringent are noteworthy.

Reporting 136
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions.

article thumbnail

Pesticide Patents: Not ‘Working’ Out?

SpicyIP

While there is a high prevalence of generic alternatives, the agrochemicals industry in India is observing an increase in the number of patent applications filed. Even outside of patents, the players in the pesticide industry have consistently been pushing for TRIPS+ protections such as extended data exclusivity (see here , here , and here ).

Patent 126