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
Fox IntellectualProperty Moot Team and JD Candidates at Osgoode Hall Law School. Fox IntellectualProperty Moot. Madeleine Worndl, Lilian Esene, Jennifer Manley, Ibrahim Arif & Natalie Bravo are competitors on Osgoode’s 2023 Harold G.
On September 29th, students and staff at Osgoode Hall Law School were honoured to welcome Professor Okediji in person at Osgoode, where she delivered a lecture on ‘ The Paradox of IntellectualProperty Injustice ’. . Individuals and companies commonly engage in the strategic purchasing of critical blocking patent portfolios.
Over to Konstantin for the story and his take on the developments: "Some may associate businesses whose primary aim is to assert patents in litigation to obtain license revenue with the Eastern District of Texas or the Unwired Planet decision in the UK, and not think about cases further afield from Marshall, Texas or London.
An survey of more than 1,000 Americans from all walks of life has made clearer the extent to which people are confused about the purpose Continue reading.
The first kind, academic institutions, acquire patents to protect the research work of their faculty and researchers while licensing others to use the results of the research produced without commodifying the patent. They do not practice, develop, manufacture, or otherwise commercialize the patent.
Intellectualproperty assets are more than just protection for valuable technology. Businesses with forward-thinking intellectualproperty strategies are also using IP to gain competitive advantages and drive new revenue opportunities. What is IntellectualProperty Strategy? ELEMENT 1 1.
Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January 2025, on efficiency measures for the public justice service, promotes the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in intellectualproperty disputes by introducing prior negotiation between the parties as a new procedural admissibility requirement.
Introduction Patenttrolls are entities that do not actively develop their inventions but instead acquire patent rights for obvious inventions to prevent others from working on them or to collect licensing fees. In a way, patenttrolls serve a purpose, much like lawyers.
For example, Google was a key player in 2013 in starting the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge (to not sue on open-source software). Google was also instrumental in the beginnings of the License On Transfer network (which helps members who have been sued by “patenttrolls”).
A patent is a form of IntellectualProperty (IP) granted to the owners of an invention or innovation, giving them the right to control how others could use or exploit their invention or innovation. Open-source patents combine the concept of traditional patents and open-source licensing.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Sockeye Licensing TX, LLC. NPEs are also known to limit their license when suing software companies.
IP Ownership Nearly all purchase agreements require the seller to warrant that it owns or licenses the intellectualproperty necessary for operation of the business. Technology is often protected through patents or trade secrets. Here, too, not all lawsuits are created equal.
VirnetX is a classic example of an NPE that does not qualify as a “patenttroll.” Patenttrolls leverage the litigation system to negotiate settlements for less than the cost of defending against a lawsuit. VirnetX, on the other hand, licenses its patents for eight and sometimes nine figures.
Eliezer AI and IntellectualProperty Law An Insightful Discussion with Yuri Eliezer The intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and IntellectualProperty (IP) Law is becoming increasingly significant in the dynamic landscape of technology and innovation. AI and IP Law: Podcast with Yuri Eliezer by Yuri L.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). The District of Delaware has long been a favorite venue for patenttrolls across the country. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Patents , as a vital form of intellectualproperty (IP), safeguard these innovations, providing inventors and businesses exclusive rights to their inventions while promoting the dissemination of knowledge. In 2024, several key developments are shaping the way patents are filed, enforced, and litigated.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). Triumph IP claims to own a patent on technology that is vital to the 802.11 This installment will focus on a company named Triumph IP.
For example, should invalid patents be repeatedly rewarded with extended term based upon the litigious nature of the licensing entity? Abolish any review of the expert agency to correct mistakes, and even where the Patent Owner agrees to a reexamination the USPTO must presume the patent valid? — of course not.
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