Lemelson Sample Clauses

Lemelson. Plaintiff (Lemelson an alleged patent holder) brought an action against a class of users (of which Ethan Xxxxx is included) of bar code technology. Plaintiff also brought companion case against bar code manufacturers/vendors alleging sole right to all bar code technology and seeking royalty for use. Action against Ethan Xxxxx and other users is on hold, pending final resolution of action against manufacturers/vendors of bar code systems.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Lemelson. In 1989, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (and his Licensee, Technivision Corporation), began seeking licenses from manufacturers for his "machine version" patents, including Texas Instruments ("TI"), a customer of the Borrower. The Borrower was notified by TI that Xx. Xxxxxxxx was asserting patent rights with respect to "machine vision". TI brought the issue to the attention of Borrower to protect TI's rights of indemnification under TI's purchase agreement with the Borrower. In response thereto, the Borrower obtained an opinion from outside patent counsel that the Lemelson patents were invalid and unenforceable. Since that time, the Borrower was also contacted by Mictron and Motorola, two other customers of the Borrower, which received similar licensing offers from Xx. Xxxxxxxx. Ford Motor Company was also contacted by Lemelson and, in response thereto, Ford Motor Company filed a declaratory judgment action in Reno, Nevada. In June of 1995, the Court in Reno held that the Lemelson machine patents were unenforceable because of Lemelson's undue delay in filing claims in his pending applications. Xxxxxxx Reissue --------------- On August 27, 1991, Therma-Wave obtained U.S. Patent No. 5,042,951, relating to a high resolution ellipsometric apparatus. This patent cover a concept which has not yet been incorporated in any of the devices of the Borrower. The patented concept may be incorporated in a device in the future. On November 24, 1992, U.S. Patent No. 5,166,752, was issued to Xxxxxxx Research Corporation. This patent claims subject matter similar to that disclosed in Therma-Wave's '951 patent. The filing date of the Xxxxxxx patent was four months after the filing date of the Therma-Wave '951 patent. In order to obtain the claims in the Xxxxxxx patent, Therma-Wave filed a reissue patent application on August 16, 1993. This reissue patent application "copied" the claims from the Xxxxxxx patent. The reissue application also included a request to provoke an interference with the Xxxxxxx patent. In a telephone conference with the Patent Examiner in 1995, the Examiner indicated that the Borrower's reissue application was acceptable and that it had been passed on to the Board of Patent Interferences. The above-described matters could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and this disclosure is for information purposes only. EXHIBIT A-1 ----------- FORM OF NOTICE OF BORROWING --------------------------- [Date] Bankers Trust Company, as Agent for the Banks p...
Sample 1
Lemelson. Effective as of the Closing, the Vendor hereby grants the Purchaser a non-exclusive, fully paid, royalty-free sublicense pursuant to and on the terms of that certain License Agreement dated as of September 10, 2001 (the “Lemelson License”) between the Vendor and the Lemelson Medical, Educational and Research Foundation, a limited partnership (together with its successors and assigns, “Lemelson”), until such time as the Purchaser shall obtain from Lemelson a stand-alone license with respect to the BRP Business Segment, all as contemplated by Section 11 of the Lemelson License. The Purchaser shall use Commercially Reasonable Efforts to obtain such stand-alone license.
Sample 1
Lemelson. Spiegel is one of multiple defendants in a patent infringement suit regarding Lemelson's barcode, machine vision and related patents. The litigation has been stayed pending final disposition of the declaratory judgment action brought by the Bar Code Manufacturers. Following a favorable decision in the District Court in favor of the Bar Code Manufacturers, Lemelson appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit the findings of non-infringement and invalidity. The matter is fully briefed before the Court of Appeals. Oral Argument was conducted on June 5, 2005. This matter is now awaiting a decision. Eddie Bauer participates in periodic telephone conferences that focus xx xhx xxxtus of this litigation.
Sample 1

Related to Lemelson

  • Infringement and Litigation 11.1 Each party shall promptly notify the other in writing in the event that it obtains knowledge of infringing activity by third parties, or is sued or threatened with an infringement suit, in any country in the LICENSED TERRITORY as a result of activities that concern the LICENSED PATENTS, and shall supply the other party with documentation of the infringing activities that it possesses.

  • Infringement Controlled Affiliate shall promptly notify Plan and Plan shall promptly notify BCBSA of any suspected acts of infringement, unfair competition or passing off that may occur in relation to the Licensed Marks and Name. Controlled Affiliate shall not be entitled to require Plan or BCBSA to take any actions or institute any proceedings to prevent infringement, unfair competition or passing off by third parties. Controlled Affiliate agrees to render to Plan and BCBSA, without charge, all reasonable assistance in connection with any matter pertaining to the protection of the Licensed Marks and Name by BCBSA.

  • Infringement Claims If the manufacture, sale or use of any Licensed Product in the Territory pursuant to this Agreement results in any claim, suit or proceeding alleging patent infringement against Unigene or GSK, such Party shall promptly notify the other Party hereto. If GSK is not named as a Party in such a claim, suit or proceeding, GSK may, at its own expense and through counsel of its own choice, seek leave to intervene in such claim, suit or proceeding. Unigene agrees not to oppose such intervention. If GSK, and not Unigene, is named as a Party to such claim, suit or proceeding, GSK shall have the right to control the defense and settlement of such claim, suit or proceeding, at its own expense, using counsel of its own choice, however Unigene, at its own expense and through counsel of its own choice, may seek to intervene if the claim, suit or proceeding relates to the commercialization of the Licensed Product in the Field, and in such event, GSK agrees not to oppose such intervention. If GSK is named as a Party and Unigene shall, at any time, tender its defense to GSK, then GSK shall defend Unigene in such claim, suit or proceeding, at GSK’s own expense and through counsel of its own choice, and GSK shall control the defense and settlement of any such claim, suit or proceeding; provided, GSK shall not enter into any agreement which (i) extends or purports to exercise GSK’s rights under Unigene’s Licensed Technology beyond the rights granted pursuant to this Agreement, (ii) makes any admission regarding (a) wrongdoing on the part of Unigene, or (b) the invalidity, unenforceability or absence of infringement of any Unigene Patent Rights or Joint Patent Rights, without the prior written consent of Unigene, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in connection with any such claim, suit or proceeding and shall keep each other reasonably informed of all material developments in connection with any such claim, suit or proceeding. Nothing in this Section 6.5 shall limit or modify the provisions of Article 9, which may apply to such infringement claims as discussed herein.

  • Medical Inquiries Promptly after the Registrations have been transferred to Buyer, Buyer shall assume all responsibility for all correspondence and communication with physicians and other health care professionals and customers in the applicable Territory relating to the CV Products. After the Closing Date, Buyer and Seller shall work together towards an orderly transition of the responsibility for all correspondence and communication with health care professionals and customers in the applicable Territory relating to the CV Products. Seller shall continue to be responsible for such correspondence and communication under the direction of Buyer until the Registrations have been transferred to Buyer. Buyer shall keep such records and make such reports as shall be reasonably necessary to document such communications in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. After transfer of responsibility to Buyer pursuant to this Article 10, Seller shall, except in the case of medical emergency, refer all questions relating to the CV Products raised by health care professionals and customers to Buyer for its response.

  • Patent Infringement 3.1 Each party will notify the other promptly in writing when any infringement by another is uncovered or suspected.

  • No Conflict of Rights The Corporation shall not, after the date hereof, grant any registration rights which conflict with or impair the registration rights granted hereby.

  • Investigations; Litigation There is no investigation or review pending (or, to the knowledge of Parent, threatened) by any Governmental Entity with respect to Parent or any of its Subsidiaries which would have, individually or in the aggregate, a Parent Material Adverse Effect, and there are no actions, suits, inquiries, investigations or proceedings pending (or, to Parent’s knowledge, threatened) against or affecting Parent or its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective properties at law or in equity before, and there are no orders, judgments or decrees of, or before, any Governmental Entity, in each case which would have, individually or in the aggregate, a Parent Material Adverse Effect.

  • Lawsuits There is no lawsuit, tax claim or other dispute pending or threatened against the Borrower which, if lost, would impair the Borrower's financial condition or ability to repay the loan, except as have been disclosed in writing to the Bank.

  • No Conflict of Interest During the term of Executive's employment with Company and during any period Executive is receiving payments from Company, Executive must not engage in any work, paid or unpaid, that creates an actual or potential conflict of interest with Company. Such work shall include, but is not limited to, directly or indirectly competing with Company in any way, or acting as an officer, director, employee, consultant, stockholder, volunteer, lender, or agent of any business enterprise of the same nature as, or which is in direct competition with, the business in which Company is now engaged or in which Company becomes engaged during the term of Executive's employment with Company, as may be determined by the Board of Directors in its sole discretion. If the Board of Directors believes such a conflict exists during the term of this Agreement, the Board of Directors may ask Executive to choose to discontinue the other work or resign employment with Company. If the Board of Directors believes such a conflict exists during any period in which Executive is receiving payments pursuant to this Agreement, the Board of Directors may ask Executive to choose to discontinue the other work or forfeit the remaining severance payments. In addition, Executive agrees not to refer any client or potential client of Company to competitors of Company, without obtaining Company's prior written consent, during the term of Executive's employment and during any period in which Executive is receiving payments from Company pursuant to this Agreement.

  • Defense of Infringement Claims In the event Licensee or Licensor becomes aware that Licensee’s or any of its Affiliates’ or any Sublicensees’ practice of the Licensed Patents is the subject of a claim for patent infringement by a Third Party, that Party shall promptly notify the other, and the Parties shall consider the claim and the most appropriate action to take. Licensee shall cause each of its Affiliates and each Sublicensee to notify Licensee promptly in the event such entity becomes aware that its practice of the Licensed Patents is the subject of a claim of patent infringement by another. To the extent Licensor takes any action, Licensor (or the ReGenX Licensors) shall have the right to require Licensee’s reasonable cooperation in any such suit, upon written notice to Licensee; and Licensee shall have the obligation to participate upon Licensor’s request, in which event, Licensor shall bear the cost of Licensee’s participation. Without Licensor’s prior written permission, Licensee must not settle or compromise any such suit in a manner that imposes any material obligations or restrictions on Licensor or the ReGenX Licensors or grants any rights to the Licensed Patents other than rights that Licensee has the right to grant under this Agreement.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.