+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property Tag

BananaIP Counsels > Posts tagged "Intellectual Property" (Page 33)

Common Public License Version 1.0

First Publication Date: 3rd April 2009 The Common Public License (CPL) is an open source license agreement released by IBM. The company holds copyright over the license. It permits the distribution of the license but limits the right to modify it. Softwares such as Windows Installer XML developer tool, Windows Template Library and so on have been released under the Common Public License. Rights The agreement grants a license over the following rights under the copyright law to every person receiving a software under the license: Right to Reproduce; Right to Distribute (source code or object code); Right to Make derivative works; Right to Publicly display; Right to...

Continue reading

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

The image depicts a microorganism on a black background.

First Publication Date: 21st December 2008. Issue Whether a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act. Holding Yes, a human made microorganism is patentable under section 101. Case Facts Chakrabarty discovered a process by which four different plasmids, capable of degrading four different oil compounds, could be transferred and maintained stably in a single Psuedomonas bacterium, which itself has no capacity for degrading oil. Chakrabarty's patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for the method of producing the bacteria; second, claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material floating on water, such as straw, and the...

Continue reading

Apache License, Version 2.0

The image depicts the Apache Software Foundation logo.

First Publication Date: 10th November 2008 The Apache License applies to all software contributed by Apache or any other person under the license. Copyright and Patent License The license grants both copyright and patent rights over any software distributed under the license the licensee (any person receiving or using a software under the license.). The license grants the following rights under the copyright law: Right to reproduce the software; Right to modify the software; Right to publicly display; Right to publicly perform; Right to sub-license; and the Right to distribute the software in the form of object or source code. If a person contributing a software under the license holds...

Continue reading

R.G. Anand vs. Delux Films and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613

The image depicts a warrior fighting copyright issues.

First Publication Date: 14th September 2008    CASE FACTS: The appellant, R. G. Anand, an architect by profession and also a playwright, dramatist and producer of several stage plays, wrote and produced a play called ‘Hum Hindustani’ in 1953. It ran successfully and was re-staged in 1954, 1955 and in 1956. Aware of the interest of the plaintiff in filming the play in view of its increasing popularity, the second defendant, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, contacted plaintiff. In January, 1955, plaintiff met the second and third defendants and had detailed discussions about the play and its plot and the desirability of filming it. However,...

Continue reading

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Dua Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 1988 Arb. L. R. 315

The image depicts pills spilling out of a box.

First Publication Date: 4th September 2008 CASE FACTS: Ranbaxy Laboratories, a well-known pharmaceutical company, manufactured the CNS  depressant Diazapem in 5 mg tablets and sold them under the trade name of  CALMPOSE. The trade mark of CALMPOSE was registered in 1970 and has been in use  since then. The company made about 40 crores selling the drug under this trade name.  The medicine was packaged with aluminum foil on one side and polythene film on the  other in colors of silver and brown. Dua Pharmaceuticals manufactured a similar medicine and marketed it under the name of CALMPROSE. The packaging of CALMPROSE was similar to...

Continue reading

Rotec Indus. v. Mitsubishi Gajarsa Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

The image depicts the Three Gorges.

First Publication Date: 30th August 2008 Case History Rotec is an assignee of the 291 patent and sells a system disclosed by the that patent under the name power belt. On AUGUST 9, 1995 the People's Republic of China solicited bid proposals for five units of a concrete placing system to be used in the Three Gorges Dam project on the Yangtze river. Mitsubishi corp and Mitsubishi International collectively called ME, a French corp. Potain, Johnson who was working on a design of a conveyor system prepared a bid with the help of Tucker Association TA. Tucker agreed to work as an independent...

Continue reading

Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156 (1892)

The image depicts a patent fight between two groups of people.

First Publication Date: 30th August 2008 Case Facts A mechanical device was patented and a first reissue was filed within four months of the patent on April 9, 1872. The reissue was granted. Then after four years The second reissue was filed a little more than a month after the first was granted. In this reissue the specification was largely refrained, drawings changed in form not in substance and the claim was changed by adding a necessary phrase. Issue Whether a second reissue can be granted if the applicant alters the claim after refraining and changing the drawings? Holding The court held that a reissue can...

Continue reading

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and another, 1999 Arb. L. R. 620

The image depicts the purple Yahoo logo

First Publication Date: 28th August 2008.   CASE FACTS Yahoo Incorporation is the owner of the well known trade mark, Yahoo and of the domain name Yahoo.com; both the trademark and the domain name acquired a distinctive name, good will and reputation. Yahoo.com had been registered by Yahoo Inc with Network Solution Inc since 1995 and offers a whole range of web based services. The trade mark Yahoo had been registered or was close to being registered in 69 countries. Yahoo Inc had not registered its domain name in India. Akash Arora started to offer web-based services similar to those offered by Yahoo.com under...

Continue reading

Inamed Vs Lubomyr Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

The featured image show Physicians perform laparoscopic stomach surgery. The post is about Inamed Vs Lubomyr Kuzmak

First Publication Date: 24th July 2008 Case Facts Inamed Corporation was a licensee of Dr. Kuzmak as Dr. Kuzmak had four patents covering   devices and methods for surgical treatment of obesity. The patent in question was directed to a method for performing gastric banding surgery using a calibration tube and electronic sensor apparatus. In 1998, Inamed tried to re negotiate the terms of the license and when the renegotiation failed Inamed terminated the contract on December 6, 1998. Dr Kuzmak sent a letter dated December 21, 1998 to Inamed asserting that Inamed was infringing atleast 3 out of the 4 patents. Inamed...

Continue reading

Rosaire v. Baroid Sales, 218 F.2d 72 (1955)

The featured image show a pump jack used to mechanically lift liquid out of the well. The post is about Rosaire v. Baroid Sales

  First Publication date: 26th July 2008 Issue Does the earlier experiment by Gulf Corp. invalidate the patents of Rosaire as the inventions were known or used? Holding Yes, as the earlier experiments constituted prior knowledge and use according to Sec 102 (a), they invalidated the patents. Rule 102 (a) Facts Rosaire and Horvitz patents relate to the methods of prospecting for oil or other hydrocarbons. The methods claimed involve the steps of taking a number of samples of soil from formations which are not themselves productive of hydrocarbons, either over a horizontal area or a vertical down. Rosaire alleged that Baroid was infringing its patent. Baroid claimed invalidity...

Continue reading
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider
css.php