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 515

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

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

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

IPR clock runs until allegations are nullified

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing the issue of when a Defendant’s one-year window to petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) expires after being served with a patent

Parent company denied recovery for lost profits of subsidiary

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in the damages phase of 18-year-old litigation, denying recovery for lost profits

Massachusetts attorney’s lien statute applies to patent prosecution costs

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2009

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined, in a case of first impression, that Massachusetts’s attorney’s lien statute permits placing a lien on a patent (and any proceeds later derived from that patent) for legal fees earned while representing a client before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO

USPTO warns applicants of outsourcing patent application preparation

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

On July 23, 2008, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register, stating that it may be illegal to outsource invention information to a foreign country for the purposes of preparing a patent application to be filed in the United States

Innovative financing for drug development

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 10 2007

A growing number of pharmaceutical companies are monetising their intellectual property by selling partial revenue interests in their promising, but not yet commercialised, products

Initials corresponding to generic description of service found not to be protectable

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

Addressing issues of trademark infringement and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling that a mark describing the nature of the services provided by the trademark holder was generic and that the trademark holder could not demonstrate a likelihood of confusion based on a stylized logo

Abuse of discretion for district court to remand to state court claims arising under patent laws

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 28 2010

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a case on remand from the United States Supreme Court, ruled that a district court abused its discretion in remanding a case to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that arose under the federal patent laws, but also ruled that the case should be remanded to state court in any event after the district court dismisses such federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted