[Patent Pod] Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Andrew Lahser
Jan 16, 2006, 1:10:03 PM1/16/06
to mypat...@googlegroups.com
[http://www.patentpod.com/sound/2006/january/Aspex-Eyewear-v-Miracle-Optics.mp3]
Contour granted an exclusive license to Chic, including the right to sue for infringement, but terminating after five years. Contour sued Miracle Optics for patent infringement. Shortly after filing, Chic sublicensed to Aspex all of its rights under the patent. The C.A.F.C found that Contour was the owner of the patent at the time of filing and had standing to sue.
See also,
--
Posted by Andrew Lahser to Patent Pod at 1/16/2006 10:54:00 AM
Contour granted an exclusive license to Chic, including the right to sue for infringement, but terminating after five years. Contour sued Miracle Optics for patent infringement. Shortly after filing, Chic sublicensed to Aspex all of its rights under the patent. The C.A.F.C found that Contour was the owner of the patent at the time of filing and had standing to sue.
See also,
- MP3: Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted)
- PDF: Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics (Fed. Cir. 2006) (full text)
--
Posted by Andrew Lahser to Patent Pod at 1/16/2006 10:54:00 AM
Andrew Lahser
Jan 16, 2006, 1:03:18 PM1/16/06
to mypat...@googlegroups.com
[http://www.patentpod.com/sound/2006/january/Aspex-Eyewear-v-Miracle-Optics.mp3]
Contour granted an exclusive license to Chic, including the right to sue for infringement, but terminating after five years. Contour sued Miracle Optics for patent infringement. Shortly after filing, Chic sublicensed to Aspex all of its rights under the patent. The C.A.F.C. found that Contour was the owner of the patent at the time of filing and had standing to sue.
Contour granted an exclusive license to Chic, including the right to sue for infringement, but terminating after five years. Contour sued Miracle Optics for patent infringement. Shortly after filing, Chic sublicensed to Aspex all of its rights under the patent. The C.A.F.C. found that Contour was the owner of the patent at the time of filing and had standing to sue.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages