This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The issue here pertains to the question of whether a patent office located in one place can transfer a patentapplication to another office in the absence of any specific provision in the law. The defendant argued that since the plaintiff’s work was exhibited in public its reproduction will fall under the ambit of fair use.
They filed a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement against the defendant after discovering that they were selling household products under the name, ‘SUFIYAMA’, using a similar trade dress and artisticwork. The appeal was allowed, and the patentapplication was remanded for fresh consideration with the amendments.
The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 20 September, 2024 on 19 September, 2024 (Delhi High Court) Image from here The appellant challenged the rejection of its patentapplication for an absorbable iron-based alloy medical device. The patent was denied for lack of novelty and insufficient disclosure.
In this post , we informed our readers about an announcement from LexisNexis Intellectual Property that LexisNexis Reed Tech will continue to provide patent data and document management services to the USPTO for the next 10 years. Further details regarding the announcement can be found in the post itself.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content