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 2,023

Ogma and Vivitek file joint motion to terminate investigation as to Vivitek based on settlement agreement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2011

Complainant Ogma, LLC ("Ogma") and respondent Vivitek Corp. ("Vivitek") filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Vivitek based on the parties having entered into a settlement agreement in Inv. No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same

Broad injunctive relief and damage award for misappropriation of trade secrets upheld

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2011

Considering a jury verdict holding that the defendants had misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets by using the plaintiff’s source code to create competing audio conferencing products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff and scope of injunctive relief and the award of exemplary damages

Bilski-based rejections of computer-implemented claims continue to be issued by board of appeals

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

In a decision applying the Bilski "machine-or-transformation test" (see IP Update, Vol. 11, No. 11), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) continued its practice of invalidating computer implemented method claims under 101

An unwise but deliberate decision is not an “error” for purposes of reissue

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2007

In deciding whether reissue is a viable medium for perfecting a claim to priority where an applicant made an initial poor choice, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the conscious choice of patent counsel to sacrifice an early priority date in order to include omitted drawings was not the type of “error” contemplated by the reissue statute, 35 U.S.C. 251

“Broadest reasonable construction” is not boundless

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently determined that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) application of the broadest-construction rubric was unreasonable when it failed to consult the teachings of the specification

IRS denied peek behind the curtain: District Court protects Wells Fargo’s tax accrual workpapers

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2013

In an important taxpayer victory, a Minnesota District Court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo, holding that the measurement and analysis of its

Showing of direct infringement requires specific proof

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a jury verdict of vicarious liability based on inducement because the plaintiff failed to meet its underlying burden to prove direct infringement

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

New complaint filed by Rovi Corporation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 28 2011

Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Gemstar Development Corporation filed a letter on July 26, 2011, requesting that the International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 covering Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology

Are humans animals?

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

Addressing an interesting issue of patent claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting as an expanded five-member panel, held that a human is an animal