In , Intellectual Ventures (the patent owner) faced an obviousness challenge to one of its patents, based primarily on an earlier filed patent that was prior art under section 102(e). 7,274,652, which also lists Webster as one of the inventors (the Webster patent). In response, the patent owner sought to disqualify the Webster patent as prior art pursuant to section 103(c), and the case quickly focused on one issue: whether Webster and Seals, at the time of the invention of the ’195 Patent, had assigned or were under an obligation to assign the ’195 patent to the “same person” that owned the Webster Patent.Even though the patent owner was ultimately successful, this case came down to an interpretation of Florida common law to determine whether section 103(c) applied, because of the lack of clear assignment documents and employment agreements. Despite the grant of additional discovery, the patent owner was unable to prove the existence of a written assignment for the ’195 patent during the critical time period and was also unable to prove the existence of an employment agreement requiring Webster and Seals to assign the ’195 patent to their employer.Answers to that question are monitored in the C chatroom, where the FAQ idea started out in the first place, so your answer is very likely to get read by those who came up with the idea.) Unless otherwise specified (either explicitly or by defining a function in terms of other functions), invoking a container member function or passing a container as an argument to a library function shall not invalidate iterators to, or change the values of, objects within that container.[23.1/11] It's not clear in C 2003 whether "end" iterators are subject to the above rules; you should assume, anyway, that they are (as this is the case in practice).As a result, the Webster patent was disqualified as prior art to the ’195 Patent.Undeterred, at oral argument the petitioner referred to an assignment document, executed by Webster and Seals, that purported to assign their rights in the ’195 Patent to a different subsidiary.If the tree is open this shows that the initial sentences are consistent, hence that the argument is invalid; if the tree is closed this shows that the initial sentences are inconsistent, hence that the argument is valid.
the premises the negation of the conclusion, for consistency.All four designated inventors signed an assignment transferring all rights to both Motorola and Memorylink. Motorola moved for summary judgment that there was consideration for the assignment and that Motorola could not be liable for infringement as a co-owner of the '352 patent.The assignment also included a statement that it was granted "[f]or and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to us in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged . The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Motorola. The Federal Circuit rejected Memorylink's arguments that the assignment was void because it merely recited boilerplate consideration language and Strandwitz and Kniskern allegedly received no consideration given that Motorola's employees were not proper co-inventors, thus, had no rights to assign.though I am not sure how the rehashing part could be mapped on insert/erase, do you know of a way to check whether a rehash will be triggered or not [email protected] Annaqeeb: This answer admittedly doesn't make it clear, as I took a shortcut, but the intention is to say that resizing is insertion/erasure, as in if a reallocation is required, you may consider that to be the same as erasing then re-inserting all affected elements.