leb.pp.9 (Patents)

Doctrine of equivalents 2 ds item performs

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hin stated terms of patent application 2. “Doctrine of Equivalents” 2. D’s item “performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way same substantially to achieve substantially the same result” substantially * Infringing item deviates in only minor, trivial ways Patents Patents Larami Corp. v. Alan Amron & Talk To Me Larami Products Products Assigned to the following students to Assigned brief and present in class on Thursday, April 7: (1) Kelsey Frewen (1) (2) Wei Lin (3) Daniel Rash (4) Nathan Smith Patents Patents Employee is Inventor 1. Patent Assignment Agreement DSC Communications v. Brown DSC DSC wins. Generally enforce assignment agreements in Texas. agreements Patents Employee is Inventor 2. Absence of Agreement a. Employee hired to invent: a. hired Employer owns invention (employee Employer uses it solely for employer’s benefit) b. Employee not hired to invent, but invents b. nonetheless using employer’s time and/or using resources: resources Employer has free, nonexclusive license Employer to use invention (“shop right”) Patents Patents Aetna Standard Engineering v. Rowland Aetna has a “shop right” (free, Aetna nonexclusive license to use invention) nonexclusive Lariscey v. U.S. UNICOR must compensate P …P did not UNICOR use UNICOR’s time or materials, so it has no shop right in P’s invention...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online