Join our Law Notes WhatsApp Group and stay updated with Legal and Judicial Updates

Patent

From Lawnotes.in
Revision as of 06:40, 18 March 2013 by Webgeek (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to:navigation, search
HomeBrud.gifIntllectual Property LawBrud.gifPatent

A patent is an exclusive Intellectual Property Right granted by a state (usually the national government) to its inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention. It gives a privilege of stopping others from making, using or selling the claimed invention.

WIPO defined Patent as: 'A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. A patent provides protection for the invention to the owner of the patent for a limited period, generally 20 years'.

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Law

  • Federal Trade Commission Vs Actavis, 12-416, US Supreme Court, March 2013: Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud, or instead are presumptively anti-competitive and unlawful.
  • Bowman Vs Monsanto, et al, 11-796, United States Supreme Court, February 2013
  • Apple Inc vs Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
  • Oracle America Inc., vs Google Inc., No. C-10-03561-WHA (DMR) United States District Court at Northern District of California
  • Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc, 12-398, United States Supreme Court
    • 1. Are human genes patentable?
    • 2. Did the court of appeals err in upholding a method claim by Myriad that is irreconcilable with this Court's ruling in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)?
    • 3. Did the court of appeals err in adopting a new and inflexible rule, contrary to normal standing rules and this Court's decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), that petitioners who have been indisputably deterred by Myriad's "active enforcement" of its patent rights nonetheless lack standing to challenge those patents absent evidence that they have been personally threatened with an infringement action?

Related Topics

  • Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion