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: 11-20 of 864

Disclosure of a single embodiment can provide sufficient written description

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), finding that the disclosure of a single

Purported inventor fails to prove inventorship

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

Addressing a claim to inventorship of an individual not listed as an inventor on two patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

USPTO revises patent term extension calculation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

On May 15, 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules revising the way patent term extensions are calculated for patents

The duty to indemnify does not create privity

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

In the final written decisions of two related inter partes reviews (IPRs) concerning patents in the same family, the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Objective baselessness and subjective bad faith for exceptional case determination are still applicable even after Octane Fitness

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner’s indefiniteness

Commercial success but no nexus

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

In the final written decisions of two related inter partes reviews (IPRs), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board

General conclusions about basic knowledge or common sense are insufficient for core factual findings

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

Addressing whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) properly refused to reject as obvious a claim calling for a multi-prong electrical

Sanctions are appropriate for factual misrepresentation and abuse of judicial process

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

Addressing the issue of sanctions following a finding that a litigant abused the judicial process and acted in bad faith, the U.S. Court of Appeals

Indefiniteness standard during prosecution

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner's indefiniteness

Need nexus between the claimed feature and the marketed product to demonstrate commercial success

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2014

In the final written decision of an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) canceled all claims at issue on obviousness grounds