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 516

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

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

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

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

Tracking prosecution history to a narrow claim construction

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

Citing the prosecution disclaimer from the patentee’s assertions of its “simple” invention to overcome obviousness rejections, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction, which included a negative claim limitation that disposed of the plaintiff’s case

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.”

Postal Service’s use of photo of Korean war veterans memorial on postage stamp not a fair use

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

Considering whether the U.S. government is liable for copyright infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and answered in the affirmative, holding that the U.S. Postal Service’s use of a photograph depicting a national memorial was not a fair use of the underlying sculptural works

Defense of laches in patent cases to be reviewed en banc

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has order for en banc review of the defense of latches in patent cases in order to evaluate the

Identical use of permissible copyrighted work privileged in collective work

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a case destined to be widely cited, held that copyrighted work can be reproduced in a collective work if it is a work that collectively uses material originally published with permission it and uses the identical selection, coordination and arrangement of the work as in the original work

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