Tag >> patent
NEW DELHI: Mahindra & Mahindra on Monday said the company was in dialogue with Chrysler after the US auto company accused it of design infringement. MD Anand Mahindra insisted there was "no infringement" on the part of the Mahindras, though the companies were sorting out an issue related to the design of Mahindra Scoprpio's front grill design.
"We have some issues with Chrysler over the grill design of Scorpio, but we are confident that there is absolutely no infringement of any intellectual property," Mahindra said, adding that "dialogue is on to resolve the issue."
Chrysler is understood to have alleged that Mahindra copied the design from its automobile marquee Jeep. There is even speculation that Chrysler could initiate legal action against the Indian utility vehicle major. Industry
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in Trademarks, trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, Patents, patent, Mexico, intellectual property, injunction, infringement, Application on
Jul 30, 2008
The marking of products or services that use industrial property rights (such as patents or registered trademarks), so third parties may be aware of the existence of such intangible assets, provides the right holders with certain benefits. The marking is not an actual obligation, given that failure to mark a product is not illegal by itself nor harms any third party's rights. Marking a product with the indication of an industrial property right may prevent or discourage third parties from infringing the intellectual property right associated to a product or service. If, in spite of the marking, a third party infringes the patent or trademark right, the measures available for the right holder are also stronger. There are certain rules about the marking of products provided in the Mexican
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, software patent, Software, politics, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patentability, Patent Prosecution, Patent Legislation, patent, Internet Patent, intellectual property, cyberlaw, Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS, claims, CAFC, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankings) may probably neither be regarded as articles nor as being physically transformed. Well – some news for the software industry. The analysis is recommended as being not only thorough but also quite easy to read.
The usual time limit for entering National Phase in INDIA based on a PCT International Application is Thirty One months form the priority date.However, it is not that all National Phase applications filed in India have to wait for Thirty One months from priority to be taken up for Examination.In case any Applicant desires to proceed faster with the examination of the National Phase in India for a faster grant, there is a special provision for filing an Express Request for Examination by paying additional fees alongwith the National Phase entry in India by filing of which the Indian Patent Office will initiate examination of the aplication in India without waiting for the Thirty One month timeline to be over.Thus there is definite provision for expediting the grant in India of the
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, patent, Mexico, Lawsuits, law, intellectual property, infringement on
Jul 19, 2008
Section 221 Bis of the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL) provides that the owner of a patent or registered trademark (there are no common-law rights in Mexico) is entitled to claim from the infringer as damages and/or lost of profits at least 40% of the retail price of each infringing product sold by the defendant. The reason of such stipulation is not only to provide monetary relief to the right holder but also to punish the infringer. Further, section 221 of the IPL states that the right to file a damages claim is independent from the administrative penalties that the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) may impose to the infringer of the corresponding patent or registered trademark. For some years, the federal courts of appeals ruled that sections 221 and 221 Bis of the IPL
Main substance The maximum time period that the deadline for responding to a Notice of
A webpage at wipo presents annually selected notable inventors. I would like to share with you some inventions for daily use by these notable inventors (WO/2001/033409) COMPUTER GENERATED POETRY SYSTEM by Raymond KURZWEIL; (WO 03/103559) Hybrid Human/Electric Powered Vehicle and
(WO 02/011641) Apparatus and Method for Cleaning Teeth by
Dean KAMEN; (WO 98/049868) LIGHT ENHANCED BULLHORN and (WO 03/091099) ROTORCRAFT by Elwood Norris; and finally (WO 98/028988) EDIBLE TOY FIGURES CONSTRUCTED OF CEREAL, AND METHOD and
(WO 98/038810) DISPOSABLE WIRELESS TELEPHONE AND METHOD by Randice-Lisa ALTSCHUL. I hope you have enjoyed!
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, United States, prosecution, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patent search, Patent Prosecution, patent opposition, patent, oppositions, intellectual property, consultation, blogging on
Jul 08, 2008
A possibility for opposing pending patent applications in the US is presented by Dennis Crouch in his blog Patently-O under the title "poor-man's opposition proceedings ". The US law does not allow opposing a patent application (in contrary e.g. to israeli procedures which are partly based on receiving third party's oppositions), however they do commit applicants to submit to the patent office any relevant subject matter. So, the procedure comprises sending such subject matter to the applicant, thus making him obligated to disclose it to the patent office! I like this
Microsoft appealed an earlier jury verdict dated last April, maintaining that Microsoft has infringed a number of Alcatel-Lucent's patents. On Appeal, Judge Marilyn L. Huff refused to reconsider the April jury verdict and ordered Microsoft to pay for additional damages.
I would like to share my fascination with the patent clustering agent SparkIp (at www.sparkip.com , easily available via PatentPal I reported earlier). It visualises clusters of patent relating to keyword in a way that makes wandering through patent landscape enjoyable. I did not understand how it works, as it does not seem to follow the classification system (it includes only US patenets and some of the applciations currently), and am not fully convinced it is reliable, but it is surely intriguing and potentially add a qualitative factor to patent search. I would be happy to learn more about it and gain from your experience with it. An update - On June 16 SparkIP will launch a new and improved version with many additional features including international patent coverage, exports,
|
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
