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 992

To be a real party-in-interest entity must control or fund the litigation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

In a final written decision of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) determining that the petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged

No cross-examination of expert at the close of evidence

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing the appropriate timing of cross-examination of expert witnesses in an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

No en banc review for use of post invention information in obviousness analysis

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Declining to reconsider its panel decision holding that a pharmaceutical was obvious where a skilled artisan would have altered the lead prior art

Getting it right the first time

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Two recent orders by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) emphasize how important it is for a

PTAB expands discovery for inter partes review

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

In a decision that has the potential to expand the scope of permissible discovery in inter partes reviews (IPRs) as well as other post-grant

Patent co-owners are necessary parties to infringement suits, but cannot ordinarily be involuntarily joined

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

In a divided opinion addressing whether a patent co-owner has a substantive right not to join in an infringement suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

Actual negotiations trump 40-year Georgia-Pacific test to determine type of patent licensing royalties

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing a lower court’s reasonable royalty determination that chose not to rely on the Georgia Pacific factors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Motion for observation must follow guidelines

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) dismissed a patent owner’s improper motions for observation

Warning: no sandbagging experimental evidence

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has explained that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitioner should

PTAB applies balancing test in deciding motions to seal evidence

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

In an recent Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review proceeding, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied