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 935

Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini

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

Office Depot obtained a judgment that the defendant’s use of the domain name offic-depot.com constituted cybersquatting and subsequently assigned the judgment to DSH

Supreme Court to decide scope of broadcasters’ ‘public performance’ right

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2014

In a case that could radically transform the broadcast television industry, the Supreme Court will soon address whether a company "publicly performs"

Even cowgirls get the trademark blues

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 5 2010

Trade dress disputes come in all shapes and sizes

Wikipedia: more than just a footnote for lawsuits

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 25 2008

Since its inception in 2001, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has grown to be the largest encyclopedia ever assembled

A forum-selection clause in a license agreement may not necessarily prevent a litigation from being filed and permitted to proceed in a different court

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 27 2012

When two separate actions relating to common subject matter are filed, the so-called first-filed rule gives preference to the forum of the first-filed

Ninth Circuit stretches copyright law to "err on the side of life"

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 6 2014

In a ruling sure to puzzle copyright attorneys for years to come, the Ninth Circuit forced Google Inc. to remove a controversial video, "Innocence of

Permanent injunction against Microsoft is proper where scope of injunction is narrow and monetary damages are inadequate

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2009

In i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., No. 09-1504 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction as well as the jury’s findings of infringement and validity, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence as to damages or in granting enhanced damages

Dismissal with prejudice was abuse of discretion where plaintiff failed to join third party

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

In University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Nos. 08-1441, -1454 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2009), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice a suit brought by the University of Pittsburgh (“Pitt”) against Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (“Varian”) for lack of standing

Federal Circuit modifies the method for calculating B-delay in Patent Term Adjustment

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 22 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued on Jan. 15, 2014, its decision modifying the method for calculating Patent Term

Accused device infringes where it temporarily meets the claim limitations

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2009

In Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., No. 09-1001 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction, grant of partial SJ of infringement by three accused products, denial of the defendant’s motion for JMOL on infringement by another accused product, denial of the defendant’s motion for JMOL on obviousness, denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and grant of a permanent injunction