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

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 407,586

Group restructurings: one single group “concordaro preventivo” proposal, procedure and voting majority ?

  • NCTM Studio Legale Associato
  • -
  • Italy
  • -
  • November 29 2014

Two recent decisions of the Tribunals of Ferrara (8 April 2014) and Palermo (9 June 2014) address some of the major issues involved in group

2014 Autumn review M&A legal developments

  • White & Case LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 29 2014

We set out below a number of interesting English and European court decisions which have taken place and their impact on M&A transactions . This

Failure to address All Graham factors dooms CBM petition

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing the showing required to institute Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings based on obviousness, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Fabricating evidence and losing arbitration

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing an issue of whether an arbitrator inappropriately sanctioned a party that had been found to have fabricated evidence and whether the

Not so “routine discovery” in AIA proceedings

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

In two orders issued from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB or Board) in unrelated proceedings, the PTAB

Ineligible subject matter in one court is still ineligible in another

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing the issue of whether the court was bound by another court’s holding that a patent was invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible

Joint motions to terminate pre-institution IPRs should explain why termination is appropriate

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing what information “should” be in a joint motion to terminate proceedings at the pre-institution stage, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Prior art-related submissions that go to the merits are supplemental “evidence,” not supplemental “information”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing whether prior-art-related submissions by a petitioner in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding are supplemental information under 37 C.F

Patent owner’s General Counsel allowed to substitute designated counsel at oral hearing

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing a patent owner’s request in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) to be excused from attending the oral hearing in view of the financial burden

Claims directed to a mental task are abstract, but computerizing an old practice is not

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing the issue of patent-eligible subject matter for Covered Business Method (CBM) patents, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial