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

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

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

Federal government may be liable for patent infringement by private companies performing quasi-governmental functions

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

Addressing the jurisdiction of a patent infringement claim against the U.S. government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed

Two-way test for obviousness type double patenting narrowly applied

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the two-way test for obviousness-type double patenting is applicable when the claims could have been presented in an earlier application in the family

Ninth Circuit weighs in on compulsory nature of antitrust claims and choice of law issues

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of antitrust claims, finding that the claims in issue were compulsory counterclaims that the defendant had failed to plead in response to a prior patent infringement lawsuit

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

License to “make” includes an inherent right to “have made”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that a license to make a patented article includes an inherent right to have a third party make the article absent express language to the contrary

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

Court rejects copyright protection for computer program found lacking originality

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2007

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky provides important guidance about the amount of creativity required to support copyright in a computer program and the nature of fair use in the context of interoperability

Parody prevails: Louis Vuitton v Chewy Vuiton

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 28 2007

Affirming the district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld judgments that Haute Diggity Dog’s “Chewy Vuiton” products neither infringe Louis Vuitton Malletier’s (LVM) copyrights nor infringe or dilute LVM’s trademarks or trade dress