Remove 2007 Remove Patent Infringement Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Most Cited Supreme Court Patent Cases Since 1952

Patently-O

Lots of the new learning in patent law over the past decade has focused on patent eligibility. 321 (1971) (antitrust – patent pools – waiver of defenses); MedImmune, Inc. 118 (2007) (licensee standing for declaratory judgment action); Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. 398 (2007) (obviousness); and.

Patent 111
article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

Qualcomm had previously sued Apple for patent infringement, and Apple responded with a set of inter partes review petitions. The petition asks the following question: Whether a licensee has Article III standing to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement that covers multiple patents.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Delhi High Court Directs Maharaja to Pay a King’s Ransom in a Patent Infringement Suit  

SpicyIP

Putting an end to a 24 year old patent infringement suit, the Delhi High Court has directed Maharaja Appliances Ltd. A legal notice had been issued to the defendant on September 27, 2007 and this was subsequently followed by an interim injunction on September 10, 2009. [ This post has been co-authored with Swaraj Paul Barooah ].

article thumbnail

Top 10 Patent Cases: 1891 to 1951

Patently-O

Teleflex (2007). The Supreme Court explained that a collection of known elements cannot be patented unless “the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts” — something that is usually not the case in mechanics. The defendant had been telling people that plaintiff was an infringer; plaintiff sued for defamation.

Patent 131
article thumbnail

Within The Scope of This Concise Analysis, the Case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd. Is Investigated

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction The main emphasis of the case pertains to accusations of patent infringement made by the defendant, as well as the subsequent pursuit of damages. In year 2007 the plaintiffs (Bajaj Auto Ltd.) case study examines the substantive aspects of the lawsuit in accordance with provisions outlined in the Patents Act-1970.

article thumbnail

[Guest post] Closing the patent loophole across borders

The IPKat

437 (2007) where the Court refused to extend the U.S. Patent Act extraterritorially based on the presumption that federal statutes, including patent statutes, shall not extend to acts occurring abroad. At the end of the day, whether a particular conduct falls under a particular patent claim or not is a technical test.

Patent 86
article thumbnail

Obviousness Test for Design Patents Unchanged

The IP Law Blog

Second, they must be nonobvious over the prior art (similar inventions that existed before the patent application was filed and are known to the public). 20, 2023), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that a key Supreme Court case decided in 2007, KSR International Co. The patent covered a design for a vehicle front fender.