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 1,890

Proof that the claimed invention worked is required for reduction to practice

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 30 2011

In reviewing a district court action under 35 USC 146 subsequent to an interference decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court may take new evidence and determine priority de novo

Supreme Court ruling on DOMA could lead to refunds of federal taxes

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 11 2013

Employers providing benefits for employees' same-sex spouses may want to consider the availability of federal payroll tax refunds if the Supreme

PTO Final Rules permanently enjoined

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 28 2008

In a ruling welcomed by many applicants and patent prosecutors, the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia has declared “null and void” a group of “Final Rules” proposed last year by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO

No likelihood of confusion or dilution between COACH for test preparation materials and COACH for handbags

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2012

Considering whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred in permitting the registration of COACH for test preparation materials over objections from the owner of COACH for handbags, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s finding that no likelihood of confusion existed and insufficient evidence was presented to find fame to support a dilution claim

Pre-AIA patent infringement filings still subject to mis-joinder rules

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2012

In a decision that is limited to infringement suits filed prior to the September 16, 2011 date of enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a case involving 18 cloud storage defendants, has concluded that district courts should stringently apply mis-joinder analysis when the joinder is challenged

Separation of enforcement from ownership leaves no leg to stand on

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

In a case involving a bankruptcy reorganization in which a trustee in bankruptcy was given the right to pursue claims of misappropriation or infringement (but not ownership of the bankrupt’s intellectual property), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court finding that the no trustee had standing to bring suit

ALJ gildea sets procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-778

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 26 2011

On July 25, 2011, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for Investigation No. 337-TA-778, Certain Equipment for Communication Networks Including Switches, Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones, and Products Containing Same

Means-plus-function limitation not indefinite if ordinary artisan can deduce corresponding structure from specification

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 7 2010

In a split panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent sufficiently discloses structure corresponding to a means-plus-function claim element if one of ordinary skill in the art can deduce the corresponding structure from the specification

Federal Circuit limits recovery of damages and attorneys’ fees awards

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

In reducing a $1.425 million award, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled (in a non-precedential opinion) that a district court erred in calculating both damages and attorneys’ fees

No appeal of determination that digital movies delivered by physical media are not taxable in New York

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 23 2012

In June 2012 a New York State Division of Tax Appeals administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of a movie theatre operator represented by McDermott Will Emery on the question of whether nontaxable licenses to exhibit digital movies become taxable if the movies are delivered to the theatre on hard drives, which are physical media