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 511

Claiming computer readable media

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

Refining its previous guidance regarding patent eligible subject matter, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a formal suggestion to applicants pursuing applications directed to computer readable media

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

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

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

Patent assignment recorded at USPTO creates a rebuttable presumption of a valid assignment

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

Addressing the burdens of proof associated with a standing challenge based on the validity of an assignment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (USITC’s) determination that the recordation of a patent assignment at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) created a rebuttable presumption of a valid assignment which shifted the burden to rebut that presumption to the party challenging standing

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

Partial ownership of a copyright is sufficient to establish standing

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

Addressing the district court’s dismissal of copyright infringement complaint, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a partial owner of a copyright has standing to bring an action for copyright infringement

Retroactive terminal disclaimer not allowed and safe harbor applies to divisional of divisional

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a terminal disclaimer cannot be effective if it is filed after the expiration of the earlier patent

Federal Circuit grants interlocutory review of claim construction

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a somewhat unusual situation, granted a motion for interlocutory review of a district court claim construction order