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 1,010

Constitutional requirements for standing to seek correction of inventorship not met where alleged inventor had no ownership or financial interest in patents

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 28 2009

In Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., Nos. 08-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2009), the Federal Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of the appeal because Borden Larson lacked standing in the district court to correct patents, and a claim to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 was the only basis for removal from state court

Looking ahead

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2010

On August 9, 2010, in Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., Nos. 09-1306, -1396 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed that emsCharts, Inc. and Softtech, LLC did not jointly infringe Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc.’s (“Golden Hour”) patent for managing emergency medical transport services

Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 2013 WL 1689071 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2013)

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2013

Plaintiff Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”) owns several large television and movie production studios, including Comedy Central and MTV. Defendant

Claims directed to “a signal with embedded supplemental data” are not patentable under 35 USC 101

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In In re Nuijten, No. 06-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board in which the Board had rejected “signal” claims in Petrus A.C.M. Nuijten’s application as unpatentable subject matter outside the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101

A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings in an ANDA litigation, but filing of a second ANDA does not violate an injunction where the injunction does not prohibit such a filing

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In Abbott Laboratories v. TorPharm, Inc., No. 07-1019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2007), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to hold a contempt proceeding on whether Nu-Pharm, Inc.’s (“Nu-Pharm”) filing of an ANDA violated an injunction against TorPharm, Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corporation (collectively “Apotex”), but it reversed the district court’s finding of contempt because the injunction contained no “explicit notice” to Apotex that the filing of a new ANDA, by itself or a straw party, was forbidden

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2010

In this suit between rival toy-doll makers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was wrongly granted ownership of the BRATZ trademark portfolio and related copyrights, and vacated a $10 million damages award that had been awarded following a jury trial

AK Metals, LLC v. Borman Indus. Materials, Inc., 2013 WL 417323 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013)

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 8 2013

Plaintiff AK Metals, LLC (“AK”) distributes metal supplies under the mark “Escondido Metal Supply.” AK alleged that Defendant Norman Industrial

Inventions with specific improvements to existing technologies are not invalid under 35 USC 101

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2011

In Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1037 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court’s judgment, ruling in favor of plaintiff Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (“RCT”

The Federal Circuit orders another case transferred out of the Eastern District of Texas and to a defendant’s home district

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

In In re Genentech, Inc., No. 09-M901 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009), the Federal Circuit granted the accused infringers’ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to vacate the district court’s denial of a transfer of venue and to transfer the case to the Northern District of California

In re Bilski: another attempt to define the boundaries of subject matter eligibility for US patents for emerging technologies

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2008

The recent decision of the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), marked the end of a decade that saw the scope of patent-eligible subject matter in the United States stretch to its greatest extent by encompassing any invention that produced a useful, concrete and tangible result