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

Creative interpretation of abandonment cannot save patent

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

Addressing a request for adverse judgment by the patent owner, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or

Once invalid, always invalid: the Federal Circuit clarifies application of issue preclusion

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

Clarifying the application of issue preclusion in the context of patent invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that

No collateral estoppel in subsequent case where decision in earlier case subject to multiple possible theories

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

Addressing the applicability of the collateral estoppel doctrine, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that there was no

Board to parties: “call me”

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

In an order issued after a post-conference call order, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board

PTAB issues rare grant of rehearing and clarifies scope of joinder

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

In a rare decision granting a petitioner’s request for rehearing, a twice-expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board

Dismissal of a related suit with prejudice can negate petitioner’s grounds for standing

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

Addressing the issue of standing, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent

Third party subpoena permitted in IPR

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

After briefing on the Garmin factors to determine if additional discovery was “necessary in the interest of justice” during an inter partesreview

Licensees not required to do due diligence where inventor falsely claimed exclusive ownership

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

Addressing the grant of summary judgment dismissing a fraud claim where the licensee failed to check the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO

Ambiguity in court’s construction creates objective reasonableness of infringement and negates exceptional case determination

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

Addressing the award of attorneys’ fees by the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant

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