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 514

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

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

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

Clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope required for prosecution history estoppel

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

Overturning a district court’s finding of prosecution history estoppel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an allegedly disclaiming statement made during prosecution was not a “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer to one skilled in the art

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

Factual expert declaration is vital to avoid summary judgment

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed a special master’s determination that, in the context of a means plus function claim element, the patentee’s technical expert failed to tie the accused device to the corresponding structures found in the patent specification

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

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

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

Plastic breakable turkey wishbone meets minimal creativity required for originality

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

In an appeal of what the plaintiff creator called a “classic case of David and Goliath,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the plaintiff’s copyright in the design of a plastic breakable turkey wishbone was valid, as it met the minimal amount of creativity required to constitute an “original” work of authorship