vimarsana.com

லோரல் ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் இன்க் News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Avoiding Patent Litigation Future Estoppel Challenges

It has always been expected that because the grounds for PGR are broader than those for IPRs, which are limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, estoppel impact from a PGR would be broader as well. Olaplex, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc provides an example of that broader impact.

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (May 3-7): The case of the missing beds and affirmative misrepresentations | Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Panel: Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Hughes, with Judge Dyk writing the opinion You should read this case if: you have a motion to reopen a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) This week we take a look at a rare feat: a successful motion to set aside a judgment (and injunction) under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(3) provides for relief from a judgment for reason of “fraud … , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”  So how did the motion here clear Rule 60(b)(3)’s high bar? Basically, it took the patent owner’s president (who was also serving as an expert) denying knowledge of prior art in a deposition, and then admitting after judgment that his deposition statements were “literally incorrect” when it was revealed that he had knowledge of undisclosed prior art “functionally identical in design to the claims” of the patent. And the district court found the president’s explanations for his false deposition testimony “w

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (March 1-5): Purely Functional Claiming And Means-Plus-Function Elements | Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Panel:  Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Moore, with Judge Moore writing the opinion You should read this case if:  you have a claim term with functional language that may be subject to means-plus-function interpretation Everyone knows patents must end with claims that “particularly point out and distinctly” identify the invention.  35 U.S.C. § 112(a).  But some inventions don’t lend themselves to succinct delineation in the claims.  So Congress provided an alternative rather than identify in the claims an exact structure or step that is an element of the invention, patentees can express the element as “a means or step for performing a specified function.”  35 U.S.C. § 112(f).  When they do, the claim will be “construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 

Man alleges he suffered hair loss and discoloration after salon applied dye to his scalp

King MEDIA – A Delaware couple allege that negligence on the part of a local hair salon led to the male plaintiff suffering hair loss, skin discoloration and patching, after a hair color and dye was applied to his scalp. Delano King and Leahmon King of Middletown, Del. filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 26 versus Trish Salon (doing business as “Trish Hair Salon & Barber Shop”) and Phi Thi Le (individually and doing business as “Trish Hair Salon & Barber Shop”) of Lansdowne and L’Oreal USA, Inc. of New York, N.Y. “On a date in or around mid-March of 2019, plaintiff, Delano King, went to defendant Trish to get a haircut. On that date, defendant, Le, and/or another employee, worker, representative, and/or agent, of defendant, Trish, cut, styled, and/or treated plaintiff Delano King’s hair,” the suit states.

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.