2/04/2005
2/03/2005
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Hybrid engine patents found invalid because patentee "dawdled" in reviving abandoned application
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Hybrid engine patents found invalid because patentee "dawdled" in reviving abandoned application: "Hybrid engine patents found invalid because patentee 'dawdled' in reviving abandoned application"
因為專利權人對於復活已被放棄的申請案的“閒置”浪費時間，而使專利被認定為無效！
此案Field Hybrids會輸的原因是，專利律師寫了一封CYA信，警告如果沒有對OA進行答辯的話，該專利申請案可能會被放棄。然而問題在於，將此種信件放於檔案夾中是正確的嗎？即使它最後會傷害到客戶？
因為專利權人對於復活已被放棄的申請案的“閒置”浪費時間，而使專利被認定為無效！
此案Field Hybrids會輸的原因是，專利律師寫了一封CYA信，警告如果沒有對OA進行答辯的話，該專利申請案可能會被放棄。然而問題在於，將此種信件放於檔案夾中是正確的嗎？即使它最後會傷害到客戶？
先前曾做過的和解協議，即使專利權人於之後放棄專利權，先前做過的和解協議依然有效。
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Consent Decree Remains In Force Despite Terminal Disclaimer: "Consent Decree Remains In Force Despite Terminal Disclaimer"
先前曾做過的和解協議，即使專利權人於之後放棄專利權，先前做過的和解協議依然有效。
可見Chicago Brand Industrial, Inc. v. Mitutoyo Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005). 一案
Both the district and appellate courts refused to reopen the consent decree -- finding that "the principles of res judicata require that Chicago Brand now live with its earlier agreement in the Consent Judgment and Decree that the patent expires on May 10, 2005."
先前曾做過的和解協議，即使專利權人於之後放棄專利權，先前做過的和解協議依然有效。
可見Chicago Brand Industrial, Inc. v. Mitutoyo Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005). 一案
Both the district and appellate courts refused to reopen the consent decree -- finding that "the principles of res judicata require that Chicago Brand now live with its earlier agreement in the Consent Judgment and Decree that the patent expires on May 10, 2005."
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)