Chintamani; Keshav Bhaktavatson
Patent Applications and Registrations
Patent applications and USPTO patent grants for Chintamani; Keshav Bhaktavatson.The latest application filed is for "enhanced immunity latched logic state retention".
- Chintamani; Keshav Bhaktavatson - Bangalore IN
- Chintamani; Keshav Bhaktavatson - Karnataka IN
| Patent | Date |
|---|---|
| Enhanced immunity latched logic state retention Grant 10,734,978 - Purushothaman , et al. | 2020-08-04 |
| Enhanced Immunity Latched Logic State Retention App 20200212896 - Purushothaman; Soman ; et al. | 2020-07-02 |
| High performance low retention mode leakage flip-flop Grant 10,340,899 - Purushothaman , et al. | 2019-07-02 |
| High Performance Low Retention Mode Leakage Flip-flop App 20180248541 - Purushothaman; Soman ; et al. | 2018-08-30 |
| Automatic latch-up prevention in SRAM Grant 9,496,024 - Sridhara , et al. November 15, 2 | 2016-11-15 |
| Power and area efficient receiver circuit having constant hysteresis for noise rejection Grant 7,496,154 - Chintamani February 24, 2 | 2009-02-24 |
| Power and Area Efficient Receiver Circuit Having Constant Hysteresis For Noise Rejection App 20060251187 - Chintamani; Keshav Bhaktavatson | 2006-11-09 |
uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.
| 