- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Fashion Law
- FERs
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Issues
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Member of Parliament
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Protection of SMEs
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
BRUCE N. SAFFRAN Vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and CORDIS CORPORATION
Introduction A patent infringement suit filed by Bruce N. Saffran, a New Jersey Radiologist (“Plaintiff”) against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Cordis Corporation (“Defendants”) claiming that defendants directly infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,653,760 (filed Aug. 9, 1995) (the `760 patent;) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Macromolecular Distribution”. Defendants’ accused products are the Cypher drug-eluting … Continue reading BRUCE N. SAFFRAN Vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and CORDIS CORPORATION
Read more »Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness
The present case relates to reexamination (Reexamination No. 90/008,482) of US Patent No. 5, 236, 503, referred to as ‘503 hereinafter. The concerned Applicant GLATT AIR TECHNIQUES, INC. (referred to as Glatt hereinafter) appealed against the order of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which was decided on 5’th Jan 2011. As an introduction, … Continue reading Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness
Read more »