« Subsidiary's Lost Profits Do Not Translate to Lost Profit Damages for Parent Patent Holder | Main | Ex Parte Reexamination Statistics I »
Jun 05, 2008
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Search & Share
Subscribe
Patently-O is the most popular patent law blog and a daily read for over fifteen thousand patent law professionals from every major innovative corporation, IP Law Firm and world patent office. Click the link above to receive an automatic Patently-O e-mail each morning with the freshest posts.
Recent Posts
- Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- Vacatur: Judge Posner Agrees to Vacate Inequitable Conduct Holding Based on Settlement Agreement
- Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Design Patents: Mueller & Brean
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes: New Job Openings
- Design Patents: Functionality and a Trade Dress Gap Filler
- A Brief Defense of the Written Description Requirement
- Nov 13, 2009 2:32:53 PM
- Tafas v. Kappos: Cleaning Up
- Survey of the Disruptive Impact of a First-to-File Switch
- Precedential BPAI Opinion Rejects Functional Claim Elements as Indefinite and Not Enabled
- Red Hat on Patents (VIDEO)
- Kappos Blog & First-to-File
- Bilski v. Kappos: Supreme Court Arguments
- Supreme Court Hears Bilski v. Kappos
- Business Method Patents: Technological Change, Not Judicial Activism
- Stays Pending Appeal
- Patent Prosecution Tips: Drafting Preambles
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Abandoning software patents?
- Trademark Cancellation: Presumption of Validity includes Presumption of Acquired Distinctiveness for Marks Registered under Section 2(f)
- Federal Circuit: When are Subsidiaries Covered in a License Agreement?
- Challenging the Constitutionality of Gene Patents: Ass'n for Medical Pathology v. USPTO
- Stays Pending Reexamination
- Supreme Court Clustering of Patent Cases
- Mayo v. Prometheus: Medical Methods and Patentable Subject Matter at the Supreme Court
- Bits and Bytes
Categories
- Academic Studies
- Accelerated Examination
- All Elements
- Amicus Brief
- Anticipation
- Articles and Publications
- Attorney Fees
- Best Mode
- Bits and Bytes
- Blogroll
- Book Review
- BPAI
- Business Developments
- CAFC
- Certificate of Correction
- Chemical
- Claim Construction
- Claim Drafting Tips
- Conference or CLE
- Contributory Infringement
- Damages
- Declaratory Judgment
- Design Patent
- Dissent
- District Court
- Doctrine of Equivalents
- EFiling
- En Banc
- Enablement
- Fees
- First Sale / Exhaustion
- Gaming
- Graham Factors
- Guest Post
- Indefinite
- Inducement
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Interference
- Invalidity
- Inventors
- Inventorship
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm Practice
- Lear Doctrine
- License
- Local Rules
- Means Plus Function
- Medical Device
- Method Claims
- Motivation to Combine
- Obviousness
- On Sale
- Patent Cases 2004
- Patent Cases 2005
- Patent Cases 2006
- Patent Cases 2007
- Patent Cases 2008
- Patent Cases 2009
- Patent Legislation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Q&A
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Pharma
- PHOSITA
- Post Grant Review
- Priority Rights
- Procedure
- Provisional Patent Application
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Revival
- Settlement
- Software
- State Immunity
- Statutory Construction
- Summary Judgment
- Supreme Court
- Takings
- Teaching Away
- TipCast
- Tools
- Trade Secret
- Transnational
- USPTO News
- Vitiation
Author
- Dennis Crouch,
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
School of LawOccasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics
- Short Articles:
- Preferred Blog Citation: Dennis Crouch, [Title of Post], Patently-O, [permalink URL] (Date).
Recent Comments
- step back on Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- step back on Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Just an ordinary inventor(TM) on Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Just an ordinary inventor(TM) on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Just an ordinary inventor(TM) on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Swarthy Fellow on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- ra on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- 6 pieds sous terre on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Malcolm Mooney on Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- John Nagle on Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- Anony on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- sucemabite on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- deathtobusinessmethods on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- 6 on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Ned Heller on Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- smashmouth football on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- smashmouth football on Vacatur: Judge Posner Agrees to Vacate Inequitable Conduct Holding Based on Settlement Agreement
- 6 on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- CAFCgroupie on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- step back on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
Terms of Use & Disclaimer
- Terms of Use
- Patently-O on Facebook
Connect with Patently-O readers. -
-
DC;
D398,879? Superior Merchandise Co., Inc. v. M.G.I. Wholesale, Inc., 2000 WL 322779 (E.D.La. 2000)
Posted by: Anon E. Moose | Jun 05, 2008 at 02:51 PM
That sofa is really distinctive.
LOL.
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Jun 05, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Not to mention Design Patent No. 321,347, to Tony Colida. See Dennis' earlier post at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2004/12/mobile_phone_ma.html.
Colida sued several more times with the same patent after losing these 3 suits. Does anybody know the record for number of separate infringent cases lost, based on the same patent?
Posted by: BigGuy | Jun 05, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Does anyone have any litigation info regarding the utility knife patents?
Posted by: DAG | Jun 06, 2008 at 04:54 PM