Legal Question in Intellectual Property in California

definition of ''patentee'' for 287(a)
I am looking for support for the proposition that in certain cases someone other than the actual patent holder can provide ''actual notice'' required by 35 USC 287(a). I know LANS v DIGITAL EQUIPMENT implied that only the patentee can provide notice for damages to accrue, but some opinions such as Aspex Eyewear v E'Lite; In Re Elonex Phase II imply that someone that has a substantial number of rights under a license can also provide notice. But then other cases like LAMPI V American Power Products give the word 'patentee' in 287(a) a very literal reading. Which one is more commensurate with what the Federal Circuit intended in LANS? Any opinion will be helpful.

I'm looking for good cases for defining how the court interprets substantial rights in case the issue is more related to standing?

Asked on 6/10/05, 11:09 am

Michael Shimokaji SHIMOKAJI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

Re: definition of ''patentee'' for 287(a)

you may want to look for the ability of exclusive licensees to bring suit

Answered on 6/10/05, 7:46 pm

Keywords

Match Any Match All

Country

State

Area of Law