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
In yet another order dealing with unreasoned rejections of a patentapplication, the Delhi High Court comes down heavily on the Indian Patent Office. Praharsh and Swaraj write about this order, underscoring the role played by well-reasoned orders in the appeals before the high court and patent bargain.
Section 3 of the Patents Act lists statutorily non-patentable inventions, which pose a challenge to patentability depending on the subject matter claimed. In summary, a patentapplication for a medical device in India is often objected to under Sections 3(i), (f), and (k).
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Judge Timothy Black rejected arguments that a state court declaratory relief action over the ownership of several disputed patentapplications involved federal patent or trade secret claims and ruled that it belonged in state court.
On January 9, 2020, the FTC held a public workshop to consider whether the FTC should issue a rule that would limit or forbid the use of non-competes in employment contracts and subsequently invited submissions from interested parties. Will it include non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements, or will it be confined to non-competes?
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