Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 1,399

Bankruptcy Court: parties may not contract around mutuality requirement to circumvent prohibition against triangular setoffs

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
January 14 2009

The decision in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. prohibiting parties from contracting around Bankruptcy Code section 553’s mutuality requirement may disrupt customary business practices, including those widely used in the energy, natural gas and crude oil markets, because it rules that contracting for cross affiliate netting does not “create” the mutuality required for setoff

Supreme Court reverses Federal Circuit, this time on obviousness

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court criticized the application of the Federal Circuit’s “teaching, suggestion or motivation” (TSM) test for obviousness

The legend of the golden master lives on Supreme Court limits the reach of 271 (f)

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

Continuing a string of reversals of Federal Circuit decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court once again reversed the Federal Circuit in holding that under 35 U.S.C. 271 (f) software per se does not qualify as a “component” and that software copies created outside the United States from a master disk exported from the United States are “supplied” from the United States

A limitation in the dependent claim may imply a broad meaning of a claim term in the independent claim

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a claim-construction decision based on imposition of the often cited but seldom successful principle of claim differentiation, held that the claim term “intermediary” in the independent claim should be given broader interpretation than in a narrower, dependent claim

Exculpatory opinion of counsel not always a defense to willfulness

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

In determining that the claims were entitled to broad, plain meaning interpretation and that an opinion of counsel did not serve as an automatic “good faith” shield, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit deferred to a jury’s finding of willful infringement

District court denies all challenges to FDA decision concerning rights to market and sell generic versions of Pfizer’s Norvasc

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

In a case involving generic versions of Pfizer’s high blood pressure drug Norvasc (amlodipine besylate) and the availability and applicability of both 180-day generic drug exclusivity and pediatric exclusivity the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied all requests for preliminary injunction related to amlodipine besylate tablets and supported the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) position concerning Mylan’s current status as holder of the only approved Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for all strengths of this product

Claim construction and estoppel cut a wide path

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of literal infringement, finding an erroneous claim construction and that there could not be infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because of prosecution history estoppel

Final does not always mean final

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Philips’ petition for rehearing and affirmed its decision to issue a writ of mandamus directing a district court to stay its proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659 until the parallel US International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings were no longer subject to judicial review

Product inherently anticipates process despite lack of disclosure on necessary conditions

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2007

Over a vigorous dissent that shed light on the Court’s divergent inherent anticipation jurisprudence, a panel majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of invalidity based on anticipation by inherency

Supreme Court holds that FDA premarket approval of Class III medical device preempts state tort law

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
February 28 2008

Companies that market Class III medical devices subject to premarket approval are shielded from state law claims that would impose requirements different from or in addition to those imposed by FDA

next >

Search results

Bankruptcy Court: parties may not contract around mutuality requirement to circumvent prohibition against triangular setoffs

Supreme Court reverses Federal Circuit, this time on obviousness

The legend of the golden master lives on Supreme Court limits the reach of 271 (f)

A limitation in the dependent claim may imply a broad meaning of a claim term in the independent claim

Exculpatory opinion of counsel not always a defense to willfulness

District court denies all challenges to FDA decision concerning rights to market and sell generic versions of Pfizer’s Norvasc

Claim construction and estoppel cut a wide path

Final does not always mean final

Product inherently anticipates process despite lack of disclosure on necessary conditions

Supreme Court holds that FDA premarket approval of Class III medical device preempts state tort law

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea