Tag >> intellectual property
Posted by: Ventsi Ventsi in Patent search, patent, MIcrosoft, law, IP litigation, Internet Patent, intellectual property, Decision, copyright, business, blogging on
Jan 14, 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision on the case between software giant Microsoft and the Canadian company i4i Inc.
This case concerning a claim by i4i Inc., that Microsoft infringed its patent for a software format XML.
According to the court decision Microsoft must stop selling Word and any other Office 2007 products, which contain the form XML. Moreover, U.S. giant must pay compensation amounting to 290 million dollars.
This means for Microsoft, in order to continue the sale of the Word in the future, should remove the options for storage in formats. XML,. DOCX, or. DOCM, which contain XML.
Intellectual Property Planet
Posted by: Ventsi Ventsi in Patent search, patent, MIcrosoft, law, IP litigation, Internet Patent, intellectual property, Decision, copyright, business, blogging on
Jan 14, 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision on the case between software giant Microsoft and the Canadian company i4i Inc.
This case concerning a claim by i4i Inc., that Microsoft infringed its patent for a software format XML.
According to the court decision Microsoft must stop selling Word and any other Office 2007 products, which contain the form XML. Moreover, U.S. giant must pay compensation amounting to 290 million dollars.
This means for Microsoft, in order to continue the sale of the Word in the future, should remove the options for storage in formats. XML,. DOCX, or. DOCM, which contain XML.
Intellectual Property Planet
Posted by: Yen Thieu in Worldwide patent, Vietnam, prosecution, Pharmaceuticals, PCT national stage, Patents, Patent Prosecution, Patent filing, patent, novelty, law, intellectual property, examination, EPO, Drug patents, claims on
May 13, 2009
Patentability of medical use claims in Vietnam has been debated for long time. At certain points of time, a number of Vietnamese patents were granted with medical use claims (first use or second use) following the practice at EPO. However, with the advent of the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, which came into force on July 1, 2006, the question again became hotly arguing. In applying the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, medical use claims, just like any other use claims, are rejected in Vietnam for failure to be either products or processes, and hence subject to exclusion from patent protection in the country. Patent applicants, especially those in pharmaceutical industries, and their patent agents choose to either: (1) convert the second medical use claims (Swiss type, as named
US food and drug administration (FDA) issues its final guidance regarding the new regulation of genetically engineered animals. The FDA approves that the DNA of genetically engineered animals is a private property that can be held under a patent. Genetic engineering refers to a genetic manipulation of organism genes. The process starts by isolating the required gene, inserting the gene into a plasmid - an extra-chorosomal DNA molecule that is separated from the chromosomal DNA (other vectors beside plasmid (viruses, for instance) can be used). After the aforementioned gene has been modified by the vector, it can be used to modify the genetic attributes of the organism. The FDA requires that any genetically modified animal products must be proven as safe for human used. The approval process
Apple was granted a patent regarding the multi touch technology of the IPhone 3G. The patent no. 7479949 and titled "Touch screen device method and graphical user interface for determining commands" was granted on Jan 20. The patent covers the detection of screen finger contact and determining a command for the device that is represented by a specific touch. The multi-Touch technology patent could be a basis for a lawsuit against palm. Palm is intending of shipping a sprint smartphone comprising a touch screen driven by a technology that is similar to that of the multi-touch patent. Layer Nilay Patel claims that Palm can file a counter lawsuit against apple based on several patents including the 7268775 patent entitled "Dynamic brightness range for portable computer displays based on
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in trademark, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, Patents, patent, Mexico, Legistlation, Lawsuits, law, IP litigation, intellectual property on
Jan 29, 2009
On January 5, 2009, the Chamber specialized in intellectual property matters of the the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA) started working. The Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) is the first instance in most IP matters (registration, administrative enforcement and validity of IP rights). For the second instance, the appellant has three alternatives available: (i) a petition for administrative review with a higher rank official of the MPTO itself (usually a waste of time); (ii) an amparo appeal with a Federal District Court; (iii) or an appeal with the FCTAA. The appeal with the FCTAA is the most usual. The tribunal colegiado de circuito or federal court of appeals will continue being the final instance. The FCTAA has jurisdiction to decide cases in a wide range
St. Louis based cable television provider, Charter Communications INC has filed a lawsuit against the prominent phone services provider, Verizon communications INC. Charter is claiming that Verizon's VOD services infringe 4 of Charter's patents. The said patents cover VOD services, billing for VOD services and data transmission. Various sources claim that Charter, who did not file similar lawsuits against any other cable TV providers, is trying to cut back losses emanating from a direct competition with Verizon over the high-speed Internet costumers. In February 2007, Verizon sued Charter claiming that Charter's telephone services over a data network infringe 8 of Verizon patents. This case is still pending.
Interested about intellectual property related blog posts or looking for some specific topic, but don't have time enough to check your rss feed reader or browse all those magnificent patent, trademark, etc blogs? No problem, now you can search within more than 300 blogs by using IPE's blogroll search . Try it, and you will find lot of interesting topics. And if you like it, you can this search engine to your blog or website. The code is available here . The full list of included intellectual property blogs is available at blogroll of IPEstonia .
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, US, United States, United Kingdom, UK-IPO, UK, russia, PPH, Patent Prosecution Highway, Patent Prosecution, patent, Japan, Israel, intellectual property, Great Britain, Europe, EPO, Denemark, Canada, Austria, Australia on
Dec 08, 2008
The IP Office of Montenegro is functional since May 28, 2008. The term for validation is November 28th, 2008 In general and as a principle rule, the said Decision provides that all intellectual property rights valid and properly recorded at the IP Office of Serbia & Montenegro until June 3, 2006, or, at the IP Office of Serbia after that date until May 28, 2008 are valid in Montenegro. The validity of granted rights is provided until expiration of the corresponding right in Serbia, until the date when the next annuity or renewal fee is due. No special re-registration or revalidation procedure is required for granted rights and the Decision is introducing the term of “recordal of rights in Montenegro”. It should be noted however, that transfer of files of granted rights from the Serbian IP
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
