Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015). Kimble evaluates whether a patent owner can collect any kind of patent royalty (e.g., royalty under a license or royalty for an assignment) for activity occurring after a patent expires. ...
Why is this important? What is it? Outside counsel v. inside counsel. Waiver. Special Topics Download the Presentation
Joint development research often results in the joint creation of an invention. In the patent world, this makes the creators not just joint inventors, but also joint owners of that invention. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 262 expressly state that ...
The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of preserving the sanctity of stare decisis to guide judicial decisions. See Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015). Yet, cases in the area of patent exhaustion appear to lose sight of ...
A myriad of law and fact circumstances create implied licenses. Scholars have commented that the law is a morass of doctrines that overlap and/or conflict.1 Nonetheless, a substantial majority of implied license cases fall into one or more of the ...
The repair v. reconstruction doctrine (RRD) also limits patent scope. You are significantly impacted by the RRD if you sell patented items, such as capital equipment, for which there is a sizeable used equipment or repair markets. You also are ...
Myth v. truth, Planning scope, Strategic patenting plan, Sample IP harvesting plan. Download the Presentation
Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharms. United States, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628 (2019) This decision addresses the question of whether secret sales trigger the on sale bar under the new Section 102(a)(1) of the AIA. The lesson is that activities under ...
