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 9,038

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

The safe harbor for FDA submissions expands: did the Federal Circuit reverse course?

  • Jones Day
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2012

Section 271(e)(1) of the patent code, known as the "safe harbor" provision, immunizes from infringement suits various acts that are undertaken in order to submit information to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"

Inequitable conduct as a defense to patent infringement in the wake of Therasense: defining “materiality” and “specific intent”

  • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2011

On May 25, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a landmark decision changing the standards for proving inequitable conduct as a defense to patent infringement

District courts react to the Supreme Court’s Global-Tech decision

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2012

A Supreme Court decision last year rejected the Federal Circuit’s “deliberate indifference” standard for proving inducement of patent infringement under 271(b

Vedder Price helps clarify the rules on induced infringement

  • Vedder Price PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 25 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed patented business methods as part of the arsenal of protection available to patent holders, but these

Supreme Court: patentee maintains burden of proving infringement in actions brought by licensee

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2014

Medtronic introduced seven new medical devices that it believed to be outside the scope of the license agreement. Id. Mirowski disagreed and provided

ALJ Rogers denies motion for summary determination in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans For Use In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances (337-TA-833)

  • Oblon
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2013

On January 15, 2013, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. Issued Order No. 22 in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans For Use In Making

Patenting problems in the US for diagnostic methods

  • Dehns
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2013

Last year's Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc (Mayo v Prometheus) decision, from the US Supreme Court, is beginning to spell

Federal Circuit rejects extraterritoriality limitation for certain patent claims

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 4 2012

In our first posting of Merial Limited, BASF Agro B.V. v. CIPLA Ltd., et al., Nos. 2011-1471, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012), we discuss the Court of Appeals ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2

Failure to disclose expert on timely basis justifies exclusion before markman hearing

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 16 2011

In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to exclude plaintiff's expert witness on the basis that the expert was not disclosed on a timely basis