Is the submarine patent torpedoed?: Ford Motor Co. v. Lemelson and the revival of continuation application laches

被引：0

|

作者：

Marcus, DL

机构：

来源：

TEMPLE LAW REVIEW | 1997年 / 70卷 / 02期

关键词：

D O I：

暂无

中图分类号：

D9 [法律]; DF [法律];

学科分类号：

0301 ;

摘要：

引用

收藏

页码：521 / 586

页数：66

相关论文

共 18 条

[1] The collateral order doctrine as applied to discovery requests - The third circuit's Kelly v. Ford Motor Co. (in re Ford Motor Co.)
Kromkowski, MA
Van Handel, JJ
[J]. NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW, 1998, 73 (04) : 1119 - 1134
[2] Limits on agency discretion to choose between rulemaking and adjudication:: Reconsidering Patel v. Ins and Ford Motor Co. v. FTC
Araiza, William D.
[J]. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW, 2006, 58 (04) : 899 - 916
[3] APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF YOUNG v. HIGBEE CO. TO STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE SUITS
不详
[J]. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW, 1946, 13 (03): : 321 - 331
[4] UNITED STATES v. WIDGET CO., NEWCO, AND PATENT AGGREGATOR PLUS LLC: A HYPOTHETICAL CLOSING ARGUMENT
Robertson, J. Robert
Breed, Logan M.
[J]. ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL, 2014, 79 (02) : 527 - 555
[5] Patents, powders, profits: The significance of the patent infringement trial, Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Anderson (1894)
Mauskopf, Seymour
[J]. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2014, 248
[6] “Right to Be Heard”Patent Act, Sec. 153(2) – X v. Universal Entertainment Co., Ltd.
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (4) : 467 - 467
[7] “Misappropriation of Prior Art”Patent Act Sec. 123(1)(vi) – Kato Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Tsukasa Machine Industry Co. Ltd.
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (2) : 243 - 243
[8] “Offer for Sale”Patent Act 2(3)(i) – Nidec Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electro-Mechanics
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (1) : 99 - 99
[9] “Car-Mounted Navigation System”Patent Act, Sec. 70 – Pioneer Co. Ltd. v. Navitime
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (3) : 363 - 363
[10] “Antibacterial Composition”Patent Act, Sec. 36(6)(i) – Well-Being Biochemical Co., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of the Patent Office
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (3) : 364 - 364