We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Fish & Richardson PC

Offices

  1. Germany

    1. Munich

      Highlight Business Towers, Mies van der Rohe Strasse 8, Munich 80807, Germany T 49 89 7104 1020 F 49 89 7104 1024 4
  2. USA

    1. Atlanta GA

      1230 Peachtree Street, NE, 19th Floor, Atlanta GA 30309, USA T 1 404 892 5005 F 1 404 892 5002
    2. Austin TX

      One Congress Plaza Suite 810, 111 Congress Avenue, Austin TX 78701, USA T 1 512 472 5070 F 1 512 320 8935
    3. Boston MA

      One Marina Park Drive, Boston MA 02210, USA T 1 617 542 5070 F 1 617 542 8906
    4. Houston TX

      1 Houston Center, 1221 McKinney Street Suite 2800, Houston TX 77010, USA T 1 713 654 5300 F 1 713 652 0109
    5. Minneapolis MN

      3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis MN 55402, USA T 1 612 335 5070 F 1 612 288 9696
    6. New York NY (Citigroup Center - 52nd Floor)

      Citigroup Center - 52nd Floor, 153 East 53rd Street, New York NY 10022 4611, USA T 1 212 765 5070 F 1 212 258 2291
    7. New York NY (601 Lexington Avenue)

      601 Lexington Avenue, 52nd Floor, New York NY 10022-4611, USA T 1 212 765 5070 F 1 212 258 2291
    8. Redwood City CA

      500 Arguello Street, Suite 500, Redwood City CA 94063, USA T 1 650 839 5070 F 1 650 839 5071
    9. San Diego CA

      12390 El Camino Real, Suite 500, San Diego CA 92130, USA T 1 858 678 5070 F 1 858 678 5099
    10. Washington DC

      1425 K Street North West, 11th Floor, Suite 1100, Washington DC 20005, USA T 1 202 783 5070 F 1 202 783 2331
    11. Wilmington DE

      222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor, PO Box 1114, Wilmington DE 19899 1114, USA T 1 302 652 5070 F 1 302 652 0607
  1. Claim check

    USA - February 21 2014

    You're in-house at an innovator pharmaceutical company, and one of your drugs is reaching the point where you can expect ANDA filings. Your boss asks

  2. Confusion over likelihood of confusion

    USA - February 17 2014

    What happens when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the USPTO finds that two trademarks are confusingly similar - is that finding

  3. Objective indicia of nonobviousnesswhose burden is it?

    USA - February 20 2014

    Patents are presumed valid, and a defendant challenging validity has the burden of establishing invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Did the

  4. Calling the cops: the decision to refer trade secret theft for criminal investigation (part one)

    USA - March 4 2014

    A bad guy steals something, and the victim calls the cops. The same is true when someone unwittingly ends up with stolen property. Once they figure

  5. Settlement doesn’t guarantee end of post-grant proceeding

    USA - February 19 2014

    Law360, New York (February 14, 2014, 5:31 PM ET) - Recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings should lead patent owners involved in a

  1. 2,000 public comments submitted responding to proposed changes to FRCP

    USA - April 21 2014

    More than 2,000 public comments were submitted to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil

  2. So you think that your arbitration is confidential . . . . Better think again

    USA - April 18 2014

    In pre-suit consultations with clients concerning arbitration, time and again I have found that clients take as a given that an arbitration will be

  3. “What the court giveth, it may taketh away”

    USA - April 16 2014

    One monetary remedy often sought by a trade secrets-plaintiff is lost profits. Want to know what kind of evidence a trade secret-plaintiff needs to

  4. No district court review for patent wwner in ex parte reexamination;

    USA - April 11 2014

    Fed. Cir. Affirms dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to review ex parte reexamination decision but treats the case as if on direct appeal from the

  5. District of Connecticut blocks late addition of subsidiary, kills lost profits

    USA - April 11 2014

    On March 29, 2014, Judge Robert N. Chatigny in the District of Connecticut issued an opinion denying motion for leave to add plaintiff Protegrity's