Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels</i>
On Feb. 5, 2016, in TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in an Inter Partes Review (No. IPR2013-00493) of U.S. Patent No. 6,007,575 (the '575 patent). In particular, the court affirmed the Board's conclusion that the '575 patent was not invalid as being obvious over the prior art of record despite the Board's initial institution of the IPR based on obviousness grounds. The '575 patent, entitled “Inflatable intraluminal stent and method for affixing same within the human body,” relates to inventions in the field of intraluminal stent technology, and particularly to a vascular stent for treating medical conditions which could cause either vascular stenosis or an aneurysm.
The '575 patent was filed by Dr. Shaun L.W. Samuels on June 6, 1997, and generally claims an intraluminal stent which can be affixed to a vascular wall by way of “an inflatable and deflatable cuff.” The cuff enables the vascular stent to remain in place without requiring penetration of the vessel wall, as was taught in the prior art. To secure the cuff in place without penetrating the vessel wall, the invention provides:
' said friction-enhancing outer surface featuring inflatable protrusion(s) including at least one circumferential ridge disposed about the inflatable cuff, said friction-enhancing outer surface engaging the interior of the tubular structure without penetration to prevent the cuff from moving in a longitudinal direction with respect to the tubular structure when said cuff is in a fully inflated condition; (Claim 1, emphasis added.)
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.