Day 2 s Order of Play was:
Plaintiff s case-in-chief
Dr. Murali Annavaram, Testing Expert
Deposition designations for several Intel witnesses
It became clear that as to both asserted patents, VLSI s
infringement allegations centered on the FIVR, or fully
integrated voltage regulator, feature of the accused chips.
According to VLSI, Intel added the FIVR feature to the chips in
2013, which was highly valued by Intel customers. Dr.
Annavaram testified that, according to tests he did using
Intel benchmark tools, the accused FIVR feature greatly increased
the performance of the accused chips. Today, VLSI s damages
expert Dr. Sullivan will testify.
To learn more about Day 2, please listen to DaWanna McCray s
1 . LIFE SCIENCES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
1.1 Legislation and Regulation for Pharmaceuticals and Medical
Devices
The primary legislation governing the authorisation, marketing,
sale and supply of pharmaceutical products by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act), which has been amended many times over the years to
reflect increasing FDA mandates for the regulation of
pharmaceutical products. The Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) is
the specific authority utilised to approve or license biologic
(including biosimilar) products. The primary FDA regulations
governing drugs and biologics are found at Chapter 21 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. Controlled substances, such as opioids, are
Please Wait ..
The Right to Freedom of Speech, Expression and Peaceful Assembly of CAA Protesters Recognised by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Please Wait ..
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an FIR lodged against peaceful protesters.
The grounds for such rejection were the fact that the protest was peaceful and nothing untoward had occurred during the protests.
Several countries of the world recognise the right of peaceful assembly.
Peaceful protests are an essential part in the backdrop of democracy.
OVERVIEW
In an order dated 25th of March, 2021, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an FIR against protesters of Citizenship Amendment Act (Bill) on the streets, which in the opinion of the police created not only public nuisance, but also hindered the smooth flow of traffic in the city.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Our recent post Tracking AI Prosecution Trends at the U.S.
Patent Office presented USPTO data which suggests that future
prosecution of AI inventions may be less focused on patent
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 and more focused on the
traditional requirements of §§ 102, 103 and 112. This
post is the first of a two part series looking into the challenges
that AI inventions present to one of these traditional
requirements: patent disclosure under 35 U.S.C.
§112(a). In this Part I, we identify the unique
disclosure issues with AI inventions. In Part II, we provide
As a Patent Owner in an instituted
Inter Partes Reviews
( IPR ), one of the first and most critical tasks before
you is deposing the Petitioner s witnesses, including its
experts. But approaching an IPR deposition like a typical
litigation deposition could be a big mistake.
Unlike a typical litigation deposition, where one thoroughly
probes a witness on all relevant issues to gain a better
understanding of what the deponent knows, an IPR deposition needs
to be treated more like a cross-examination at trial. This is
because the IPR witness has already provided his or her testimony
in the IPR through a declaration and, under normal