O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-770 (2019)

Definitions

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this article, the term: (1) “Claims in the patent” means the extent of protection conferred by a patent. (2) “Demand letter” means a letter, email, or other written communication asserting or claiming that the target has engaged in patent infringement. (3) “Target” means a person: (A) Who has received a demand letter or against whom an assertion or allegation of patent infringement has been made; (B) Who has been threatened with litigation or against whom a lawsuit has been filed alleging patent infringement; or (C) Whose customers have received a demand letter asserting that use of such person’s product, service, or technology infringes a patent.

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-770, enacted by Ga. L. 2014, p. 208, § 1/HB 809; Ga. L. 2024, p. 1052, § 2(28)/SB 448, effective July 1, 2024.

Amendments. The 2024 amendment, effective July 1, 2024, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted “email,” for “e-mail,” in paragraph (2).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: 3D Med. Imaging Sys., LLC v. Visage Imaging, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2017).
3D Med. Imaging Sys., LLC v. Visage Imaging, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “Bailey (collectively “Counterclaim Defendants”) for: (1) a declaratory judgment that the ’655 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (2) bad faith assertions of patent infringement under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-770 et seq.; (3) deceptive trade practices under O.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.