Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Consideration with Post-Issuance Practice: Intervening Rights
The day you have been waiting for has finally come. The patent application that your company believes covers key technology has issued. Your company may be, for example, a startup with its first marketable product or an established business trying to extend its presence in a niche market or enter into a new one. The patent provides your company the desired protection of the marketplace. There's just one problem. It appears that the scope of the patent may need to be altered to improve your position in the marketplace. For instance, a competitor may have successfully designed around the scope of your patent's claims. In some such instances, there may not be a pending application by which you, the patent owner, can capture the competitor, and post-issuance practice is the only mechanism. So, amending your claims, eg, to read on your competitor's products may seem like a sure way to capture him as an infringer and strengthen your position.
Although valid mechanisms for amending a patent may be used to improve your patent's claim scope, careful consideration beforehand of the apparent need of the amendment and its possible effects should be made. One potentially large effect is the triggering of intervening rights for an infringer of the amended patent. A patent owner needs to understand what they are, when they can be used, and the possible effect arising from them.
What Are Intervening Rights?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.