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 1,093

Federal Circuit confines de novo claim construction review by limiting consideration to intrinsic evidence

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing for the first time the issue of claim construction since the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

Prior art must criticize or otherwise disparage the claimed solution to constitute a teaching away

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing the question of whether claims covering a particular type of USB plug would have been obvious, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or

Use belt and suspenders; backup anticipation with obviousness

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing the issue of anticipation in the context of an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial

Threshold issues: IPR not derailed by unidentified dba name or prior ANDA certification

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing threshold jurisdictional issues of a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial

Real parties in interest really matter

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Citing the petitioner’s failure to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and

Board signals willingness to admit questionable evidence in close cases

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing the standard for admitting evidence in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial

Delay in filing IDS reduces Patent Term Adjustment

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing the issue of whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) properly calculated the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) based on an

Federal Circuit narrows patent exhaustion doctrine

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Addressing the scope of the judicially created doctrine of patent exhaustion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower

Antedating by third-party reduction to practice not enoughconception needed

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

In its decision to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of a design patent related to a slow cooker buffet server, the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Appellate review of claim construction still de novo if based solely on intrinsic evidence

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2015

Two appeals following the Supreme Court’s modification of the standard of appellate review on claim construction in Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz