The Patent Sample Clauses

The Patent. The invention in the P relates to an electronic cigarette and, in particular, to an aerosol electronic cigarette that contains nicotine but does not contain tar. The problems sought to be solved by the invention are not complicated and are expressed in these terms: [0006] The electronic cigarettes currently available on the market … are complicated in structure. Their cigarette bodies can be roughly divided into three sections, which have to be connected through via plugging or thread coupling before use. Also, their batteries have to be changed frequently, making it inconvenient for the users. What's worse, the electronic cigarettes don't provide the ideal aerosol effects, and their atomizing efficiency is not high. The P teaches a simple device to solve this problem and it seeks to provide good aerosol effects and atomising efficiency. The general configuration of the preferred embodiment of the P is shown in Figure 1. There are three main components: the battery assembly (3), the atomiser assembly (8, left part is coloured pink) and the liquid storage component (9, coloured yellow) in a shell (a, b). The liquid to be vaporised (for example, nicotine) is stored in the liquid storage component and this component is in liquid communication with the porous component of the atomiser assembly. When a person sucks on the device (at end b1) the pressure change causes the battery assembly to activate and provide power to the heating component in the atomiser assembly. This pressure change also causes air to flow into the device through air inlets (a1, coloured red) and towards the atomiser assembly where there is vaporisation of the liquid in the porous component by forced convection. The liquid lost by evaporation from the porous component is replaced by further liquid supplied by capillary flow from the liquid storage component. The vapour condenses within the shell to form an aerosol which is inhaled by the user. The aerosol is intended to simulate the smoke of a cigarette. The witnesses I heard expert evidence from Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Fontem and Xx Xxx on behalf of Xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx is an academic. He trained as a chemical engineer and since 2007 has been a Senior Lecturer, Reader and, since 2014, Professor in the Engineering and Environment Department at the University of Southampton. He was appointed a Fellow of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in 2011. Xx Xxx is a consultant engineer. He gained a first class degree in Enginee...
The Patent. XXX Safety represents and warrants to Ironclad that, to the best of its knowledge, Attachment D constitutes a true and complete list of the manufacturers and catalogue styles of all gloves that it currently distributes, sells or offers for sale as of the date of the Agreement in Principle (the "Pipeline Gloves"). XXX Safety further represents and warrants to Ironclad that, to the best of its knowledge and other than certain non-engineered gloves made to specification for private label, all of the Pipeline Gloves are standard catalogue items of the respective manufacturers and that none of the Pipeline Gloves are specifically made as a “custom” style for distribution or sale by XXX Safety. Ironclad agrees that XXX Safety may continue to sell the Pipeline Gloves, irrespective of whether such Pipeline Gloves actually or allegedly infringe on the U.S. Patent No. 9,241,519 (filed Sept. 19, 2008) (the "Patent"). Further, Ironclad covenants not to xxx XXX Safety or its Affiliates (as defined below), or any of their respective directors, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors or assigns, nor any customer or distributor with respect to those Pipeline Gloves purchased from XXX Safety, nor any of their respective directors, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors or assigns (collectively, “Downstream Acquirors”), based on any alleged infringement of the Patent with as a result of the purchase or sale of any of the Pipeline Gloves. For the sake of clarity, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Ironclad from suing any manufacturer, distributor or any other third party who distributes or sells any Pipeline Gloves to XXX Safety, and XXX Safety expressly agrees to cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to Ironclad in connection with any such suit. To the extent Ironclad reasonably believes XXX Safety is selling or distributing any gloves other than the Pipeline Gloves that allegedly infringe the Patent, Ironclad shall provide XXX Safety at least sixty (60) days’ prior written notice before Ironclad files any litigation alleging infringement of the Patent against XXX Safety or any party Ironclad actually knows to be a Downstream Acquiror. Said notice shall provide a description of the basis of Ironclad’s assertions in reasonable detail, and provide XXX Safety the opportunity to cure any alleged infringement or to discontinue selling (and/or cause any such Downstream Acquiror the opport...
The Patent 

Related to The Patent

  • Licensed Patent Rights 12.5 The Licensee shall indemnify and hold the IC, its employees, students, fellows, agents, and consultants harmless from and against all liability, demands, damages, expenses, and losses, including but not limited to death, personal injury, illness, or property damage in connection with or arising out of:

  • Patent Rights The State and the U. S. Department of Transportation shall have the royalty free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to use and to authorize others to use any patents developed by the Engineer under this contract.

  • Licensed Patents Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CyDex hereby grants to Sage an exclusive, nontransferable (except as provided in Section 14.14) license during the Term under the Licensed Patents, solely to research, develop, make, have made, import, use, offer for sale and sell the Licensed Product in the Territory in and for the Field. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that any Licensed Patents are licensed to CyDex or its Affiliates by a Third Party on a non-exclusive basis, the license granted to Sage in the foregoing sentence shall be exclusive as to CyDex but non-exclusive as to such Third Party and other persons whose rights derive from such Third Party. Sage may not sublicense the Licensed Patents, except as expressly set forth in Section 2.3 and Section 2.4 below.

  • Joint Patent Rights The term “

  • Third Party Patent Rights No Party makes any warranty with respect to the validity, perfection or dominance of any Patent or other proprietary right or with respect to the absence of rights in Third Parties which may be infringed by the manufacture or sale of the Licensed Product. Each Party agrees to bring to the attention of the other Party any patent or patent application it discovers, or has discovered, and which relates to the subject matter of this Agreement.

  • INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT ENFORCEMENT 11.1 PHS and Licensee agree to notify each other promptly of each infringement or possible infringement of the Licensed Patent Rights, as well as, any facts which may affect the validity, scope, or enforceability of the Licensed Patent Rights of which either party becomes aware.

  • Patent Infringement 16.1 In the event that Licensee learns of the substantial infringement of any patent licensed under this Agreement, Licensee will call the attention of The Regents thereto in writing and will provide The Regents with reasonable evidence of such infringement. Both parties to this Agreement acknowledge that during the period and in a jurisdiction where Licensee has exclusive rights under this Agreement, neither will notify a third party of the infringement of any of Patent Rights without first obtaining consent of the other party, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Both parties will use their best efforts in cooperation with each other to terminate such infringement without litigation.

  • Prosecution of Patents (a) The Licensor shall be solely responsible for preparing, prosecuting and maintaining the BENTLEY Patents.

  • Joint Patents With respect to the Prosecution of patent applications claiming Joint Inventions subject to Section 7.2(c) (“Joint Patents”), Rhythm shall have the right to take such actions as are necessary or appropriate to Prosecute Joint Patents at its sole expense; provided, that all such patent applications and patents shall be owned jointly. Rhythm shall furnish Camurus with copies of such Joint Patents and other related correspondence relating to such Joint Inventions to and from patent offices throughout the Territory and permit Camurus to offer its comments thereon before Rhythm makes a submission to a patent office. Rhythm shall inform Camurus of the countries in which it intends to file patent applications. Camurus shall offer its comments promptly, including any request that the patents be filed in additional countries; provided, that Rhythm shall determine the appropriate action after considering in good faith any comments or requests from Camurus, and further provided that in the event that delay would jeopardize any potential patent right, Rhythm shall have the right to proceed without awaiting Camurus’ comments. If Rhythm determines in its sole discretion not to Prosecute any patent or patent application within the Joint Patents in any country, and provided that no other patent applications or patents claiming the same or similar subject matter are then pending or issued in that same country, then Rhythm shall provide Camurus with sixty (60) days prior written notice (or such shorter time period that would permit Camurus a reasonable opportunity to respond in a timely manner) of such determination and Camurus shall have the right and opportunity to Prosecute such patent application or patent on behalf of the Parties at Camurus’ sole cost and expense. Camurus shall provide Rhythm the same information and rights required under this Section 7.3(c) to be provided Camurus concerning the Prosecution of such Joint Patents.

  • Patent The development of patentable inventions or discoveries is not the primary purpose of the research activities of the faculty. Employees have no obligation to seek patent protection for the results of scientific work nor to modify research to enhance patentability.