ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> The Patent Prospector

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Patent Law

: The Patent Prospector

Tipsy Stipulation

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

ADVERTISEMENTS

Dr. G. David Jang assigned 5,922,021 and 5,954,743 to Boston Scientific and SciMed Life Systems. The companies were supposed to pay royalties on products "covered by" (i.e., infringing) the patents. Jang sued because he thought he wasn't getting his share. Central California district court issued a claim construction. Before appeal, they all stipulated that Jang was out of luck if the claim construction held. But the agreed stipulation was ambiguous on crucial points. The appeals court threw up its hands, vacated the judgment, and remanded "for clarification." (CAFC 2007-1385)

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on July 16, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0024 secs (from cache 10/31/26 15:12:36)