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 512

The top five intellectual property traps in M&A transactions

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2010

In M&A transactions, many lawyers assume that intellectual property (IP) rights will automatically transfer with the purchase and that IP issues can be cured by general representations and warranties

A dismissal for lack of standing should generally be without prejudice

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 27 2009

Addressing yet another standing dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a dismissal for lack of standing with prejudice, noting the general rule that a dismissal on that basis should ordinarily be without prejudice

Plastic breakable turkey wishbone meets minimal creativity required for originality

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2010

In an appeal of what the plaintiff creator called a “classic case of David and Goliath,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the plaintiff’s copyright in the design of a plastic breakable turkey wishbone was valid, as it met the minimal amount of creativity required to constitute an “original” work of authorship

Trademark owner’s ability to stop repackaging of authentic goods remains limited

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 29 2008

Addressing the reach of the Supreme Court’s landmark Coty decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld a grant of summary judgment to defendants who repackaged plaintiff’s products with a disclaimer, holding that there was no issue of material fact and that the packages “cannot cause confusion.”

Equivalents infringement requires showing of particularized evidence

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2007

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that a district court erred in finding the doctrine of equivalents barred by prosecution history estoppel and in relying on unclaimed features to find a lack of equivalents, but nevertheless affirmed a grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff did not satisfy its burden to present particularized evidence of equivalents in opposition to the motion for summary judgment

Removal of UPC codes may constitute trademark infringement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 27 2009

Upholding a preliminary injunction entered against a national drugstore chain, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognized that a trademark owner may maintain an action for trademark infringement when a defendant sells an otherwise genuine product that has been tampered with so that its anti-counterfeiting device has been removed

Teachings incorporated by reference for anticipation purposes need not be individually named

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2009

Finding that material not explicitly contained in the single, prior art document may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if incorporated by reference into the document, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s summary judgment that patents were not invalid for anticipation

No right of compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act after the patent grant

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2010

Addressing the Invention Secrecy Act , 35 U.S.C. 181 et seq., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California that section 183 of the Act does not give a right to compensation for government use that occurred after patent grant as any apparent remedy was under 28 U.S.C. 1498

Hold on to your jeansdistrict court oppositions not limited to issues presented to TTAB

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has now ruled that a trademark opposition under 21(b) of the Lanham Act need not be limited to the issues presented before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB

Top 10 intellectual property and regulatory legal issues for biotech start-ups

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 18 2008

Start-up biotech companies should address these key legal issues with the aid of legal counsel