Skip Navigation


Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on July 5, 2009
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2009 4(8):536-538; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpp100
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
4/8/536    most recent
jpp100v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Macedo, C. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Current Intelligence

Patent assignment found ambiguous as a result of too much specificity

Charles R. Macedo
Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, New York, NY

Euclid Chem. Co. v Vector Corrosion Techs., 561 F.3d 1340, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1 April 2009

District Court erred in granting summary judgment on patent ownership due to ambiguity in assignment.

Correspondence: Email: cmacedo{at}arelaw.com

Charles Macedo is the author of The Corporate Insider's Guide to US Patent Practice, forthcoming from Oxford University Press in 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.