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
TaylorMade Golf Company teed off a dispute over golf club design and filed a patent infringement lawsuit on January 31 st, 2024, in the Southern District of California against Costco and Southern California Design Company alleging infringement and falseadvertising relating to five of TaylorMade’s patents related to golf irons.
EnChroma allegedly advertises that its lenses are “patented,” but Eyenavision alleged that EnChroma’s lenses do not practice the relevant patent and therefore brought false marking, Lanham Act falseadvertising, and unfair competition claims.
Dr. Caleb Bates focuses his practice on intellectual property law, with an emphasis on patentprosecution, strategic counseling, and worldwide patent portfolio management in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. He received his J.D., magna cum laude , from George Mason University School of Law in 2014 and his B.S.,
As for the other, the Board explained it was a waste “of the Board’s time and resources to revisit the same prior art disclosures that were examined in detail by the Examiner over eight years of patentprosecution.”
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