Cases Studies on Intellectual Property Issues for Bionics
Litigation plague does become a major worry for investors, assignees, inventors and related personnels, even holding a quality patent may not secure enough to be free from patent litigation. As long as the patented technology involoved in considerable profits, competitors will try every possible measure to take over the market, sales order or technology, sometimes aiming to merge or probing core technology, moreover for marketing awareness or brand promotion. Accusing patent infringement through complicated technical data or wordings, patent invalid through anticipation by 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obviouness by 35 U.S.C. § 103, or based on details such as priority dates, publicizing dates, references, filing dates,…etc. Inequidable conducts are new fashions with various tactics like attcking missing lables on embosiments, unsupported spcification , obvious to try, experiments details, chemical structure’s similarity upon biological efficacy, similarity between dehydrated from and un-dehydrated from, formulation or excipient differences, even a bit late filing information disclosure statement (IDS) for new references, crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, are common tactis in intellectual property disputs. The counteractions will be described in details with cases. Keyword: infringement; doctrine of equivalence; patent invalid; patent anticipation; patent obviousness
- There are currently no refbacks.
If you have already registered in Journal A and plan to submit article(s) to Journal B, please click the CATEGORIES, or JOURNALS A-Z on the right side of the "HOME".
We only use the following emails to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Copyright © Canadian Research & Development Centre of Sciences and Cultures (CRDCSC)
Address:730, 77e AV, Laval, Quebec, H7V 4A8, Canada
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138