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

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

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

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

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

Twenty-one day safe harbor applies to Rule 11- no matter what

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the service and filing of a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 must occur prior to final judgment or judicial rejection of the offending motion in order to prevail

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

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

Unlike Inspector Clouseau, Pink Panther heirs fail to stumble on favorable theory

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a decision against the heirs of the man who created the Pink Panther and granted copyright ownership to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc

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.”