Summary Facts: The Plaintiff of the case, Mr. Khawaja Tahir Jamal is the owner of the Khwaja Flat Glass Industries (Private) Limited. He said that he and his company held the patent of a novel process for producing and manufacturing sheet glass with the help of the float glass technology. The Plaintiff had filed a suit against AR Rehman Glass which was a rival company, on the basis, that they had an intention to infringe or had already infringed their patent by setting up a float glass unit. So, the Plaintiff had demanded an injunction that would restrain the Defendant from infringing their patent by either producing, selling or using the Plaintiff’s innovation as their own. This suit was contested by the Defendant and they alleged that the …show more content…
The defendant said that the plaintiff, Khawaja Jamal had obtained the patentee through fraud and misrepresentation and this technology is not something new and not the invention of Khawaja Jamal. The UK patent is exactly copied by Pakistan so the plaintiff has no right over the patent. The issue was whether the plaintiff has any rights in the patent and was the patent was correctly granted or Khawaja Jamal got the patent through fraud or …show more content…
The Plaintiff’s claim over the patent was also guaranteed over the fact that there was no such evidence provided to the court by the Defendant which showed that the floating glass technology was available before the works or invention of Khawaja
(7) Hall B. Patents and Patent Policy -. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the Morse H. SETTLEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRIES: ANTITRUST RULES. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD. Valuable patents. Geol.
AWI presented two arguments against the injunction, 1) that it fails to maintain the statutes quo, and 2) that it does not serve to cure the Plaintiff’s injury. The Court of Appeals first found that an injunction should attempt to preserve the period when there were no issues between the parties, which in this case, was when AWI pumped less water. Second, the Court of Appeals found that an injunction need not cure the Plaintiff’s injury, but instead should serve to guard against future injury. While AWI alone may not be causing the entire drawdown, stopping their pumping should increase the overall supply of groundwater. In general, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court correctly applied the law in granting the injunction. After Garetson, senior waters users will find that injunctive relief will be a strong and available tool in future water disputes.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
The court had reason that appellants may have been guilty of fraudulent conversion, or of larceny by bailee if the theory is accepted that a vendor retaining possession of goods sold by him becomes constructively a bailee of the purchaser, and criminally culpable for a failure to deliver them to his purchaser. Appellants were indicted for larceny only, and of that they clearly were not guilty.
The Crown gave notices pursuant to ss 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act (EA) 2008 (Vic), intending to lead the Evidence against the appellant at trial. The trial judge ruled that the coincidence evidence was admissible but the tendency evidence was inadmissible.
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
must be excluded. But it was held admissible and the idea was excluded from the case
In Starlight Int’l, LTD. v. Lifeguard Health, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58927 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2008), California resident and plaintiff filed a complaint against Pennsylvania resident and defendant, claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Starlight is a limited partnership that markets and sells dietary supplements and Lifeguard also markets and sells dietary supplements and maintains an interactive website where it displays its product. Starlight alleges it owns the registered trademarks of Lifeguard, Lifeguard Junior, and Lifeguard Joint Formula. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to transfer venue to Pennsylvania. Defendant states that there is no basis for which
The suit was ref the board of directors and key officers, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross management, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The plaintiffs had met their rule 23.1 burden to plead with particularity their claims of demand futility. (Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page 2.) The conclusion of this case is the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s verified shareholders amended derivative compliant (122) with prejudice is granted. The case was hereby terminated. Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page
Here, the plaintiff alleges that but for the defendant’s negligence in not fixing the gate, the plaintiff received the
The court ridiculed the contrary arguments put forward by Intex in CCI and the High Court and also dismissed the arguments of the Intex with regards to Sections 8 and 64. It also rejected the arguments regarding the fact that the Ericsson had yet to establish the essentiality of its patents, and that this could only be established once the challenges to the same were addressed. Thus, all the arguments made by Intex were dismissed by the Court. It further ordered Intex to pay Ericsson 50% of the total royalty amount, as per total selling price per device, and not chipset, from the date of filing the suit within four weeks, and ordered that the rest of the amount be paid to the Court
Trademark, Property, and Restitution." Harvard University. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 2010. Web. 26 Feb 2014. .
It was argued by Cheung the reference by Lord Scott in Gamlestaden is still a summary of principles derived from Re Chime Corp. It is submitted that the reading of the case of Gamlestaden as it is does not state any criteria to allow corporate relief in unfair prejudice petition but rather the decision just endorsed that the court “may make such order as it thinks fit for giving relief in respect of the matters complained of” under an unfair prejudice petition. This could be a cautious approach not to restrict the ability of the court to may make such order as it thinks fit which would not be available if a test is introduced.