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

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

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

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

Director’s decision on inter partes review institution is the final word

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

In three opinions, each addressing a slightly different issue regarding the reviewability of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) director’s

When is a design around a mere “colorable variation”? An injunction order ambiguous? (Stay tuned)

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

Heralding a busy en banc season for Judge Rader’s first year as chief judge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its second en banc order in less than a month, this time vacating its panel decision in TiVo v. EchoStar, and taking up Judge Rader’s dissent on the issue of when a contempt holding, as applied to a design-around by an enjoined party, is appropriate

Failure to argue intervening change in law before entry of judgment below waived challenge to jury instructions on appeal

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

Finding waiver of a post-KSR challenge to jury instructions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of non-obviousness and affirmed a judgment of infringement

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

State university waives Eleventh Amendment immunity

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

Addressing the issue of whether a state university can waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by expressly agreeing to federal jurisdiction in an agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the University of Massachusetts at Lowell (the University) waived its immunity by agreeing to submit to jurisdiction in an appropriate federal court

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