Mirage IP vs MicroVention 2:17-cv-00380 Core Wire With Shapeable Tip US6375629B1

Mirage IP vs MicroVention 2:17-cv-00380 Filed: 05/02/2017
US 6,375,629 B1 Core Wire With Shapeable Tip

http://mypatentcourse.thinkific.com/








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Slide Fire Solutions LP v. Bair Arms LLC 3:17-cv-00999

Image
Slide Fire Solutions LP v. Bair Arms LLC 3:17-cv-00999 Filed: 04/10/2017  Slide Fire Solutions LP v. Bair Arms LLC Plaintiff: Slide Fire Solutions LP Defendant: Bair Arms LLC Case Number: 3:2017cv00999 Filed: April 10, 2017 Court: Texas Northern District Court Office: Dallas Office County: Shackelford Presiding Judge: A. Joe Fish Nature of Suit: Patent Cause of Action: 28:1338 Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff http://www.mypatentcourse.com/patent-preparation-course/ Method of shooting a semi-automatic firearm  United States Patent 8127658 B1 · Filed: 10/26/2011 · Published: 03/06/2012 US 8,448,562 B2 Interface For Reciprocating Firearm Stock 11/18/2009 US 8,127,658 B1 Method Of Shooting A Semi Automatic Firearm 11/18/2009 US 8,176,835 B1 Sliding Stock For Firearm 11/18/2009 US 8,607,687 B2 Slide Stock For Firearm With Contoured Finger Rest 11/18/2009 US 9,546,836 B2 Slide Stock For Firearm With Retractable Lock Pin 11/18/2009 US 8,474,169 B2 Handle Fo...
Read more

SportPet Designs vs Cat1st Corporation 2:17-cv-00554 Hamper apparatus and methods US5964533A

Image
SportPet Designs Inc v. Cat1st Corporation et al 2:17-cv-00554 Filed: 04/18/2017 SportPet Designs vs Cat1st Corporation Plaintiff: SportPet Designs Inc Defendant: Cat1st Corporation and Jun Takeuchi Case Number: 2:2017cv00554 Filed: April 18, 2017 Court: Wisconsin Eastern District Court Office: Milwaukee Office County: Waukesha Presiding Judge: William E Duffin Nature of Suit: Patent Cause of Action: 15:1126 Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff Hamper apparatus and methods US5964533A http://www.mypatentcourse.com/patent-preparation-course/
Read more

Selected patent law 3-29-2017

Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The Examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976). “Although the applicant does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In r...
Read more