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 801

Pre-AIA litigation triggers time bar for inter partes review

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

In response to a petitioner’s request for rehearing of a decision denying institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, the U.S. Patent and

Prosecution history of original examination as intrinsic evidence in post-grant proceedings

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

In a case arising from an inter partes reexamination while pending district court litigation was stayed for more than eight years, the U.S. Court of

If written description matches claim scope, no 112 problem

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court rejection of a written description challenge to patentability, concluding

USPTO releases examination guidelines for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

On March 4, 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released examination guidelines titled Guidance For Determining Subject Matter

No “second bite at the Apple” for non-petitioner defendants seeking stay based on pending IPR

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

Addressing whether a non-petitioner defendant seeking a stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) should be bound by the statutory estoppel requirements

No foreseeability bar to the application of the doctrine of equivalents

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

Addressing the doctrine of equivalents infringement of a means-plus-function limitation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed

Invalidating means plus function claim requires expert testimony

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

Revisiting the issue of written description support for a means plus function claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a

Dictionary definition dispositive in claim construction dispute

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

Addressing the use of technical dictionaries in claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s

Wisconsin legislators pass bill to thwart “patent trolls”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2014

On March 20, 2014, Wisconsin lawmakers passed a bill in an attempt to limit the ability of non-practicing entities (NPE) - also commonly referred to

A minor shift in patent term adjustment calculations

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2014

Presented with a challenge to patent term adjustments as determined by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) under 35 U.S.C. 154(b), the U.S