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: 1-10 of 114

Internet advertising patent saga continues: Supreme Court orders Federal Circuit to reconsider decision in Ultramercial v. Hulu

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 23 2012

In a brief, one paragraph order issued on May 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court hinted that a recent decision covering patent-eligibility for medical testing methods is also relevant to Internet-based methods

Judge Stark grants defendants' motion to transfer venue to Central District of California

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-082-LPS (D.Del., July 18, 2011), the Court granted the motion of defendants, Genetech, Inc. and City of Hope, to transfer venue of three actions filed against them in the District of Delaware by plaintiff, Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (“HGS”), to the Central District of California

Chief Judge sleet rules that plaintiffs' '932 patent' is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 7 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet, following a five-day bench trial, in Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-335-GMS (D.Del., July 28, 2011), the Court set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company and The Trustees of Princeton University, and against defendants, Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Barr Laboratories, Inc

We have an injunction, why can't we get contempt?

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 23 2011

It is not always the case that once a court issues an injunction prohibiting further patent infringement , any further infringement will be punishable by contempt

Sweeping patent reform legislation passed by Senate

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2011

Some franchise systems hold or are developing patents which they license for use by their franchisees

Court: patent license extends to continuation patents unless the agreement expressly says otherwise

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 3 2012

In another case highlighting why it’s important for license agreements to clearly describe the parties’ intent, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered a situation where a patent holder granted a third party (licensee) a covenant not to sue under certain patents

Judge Robinson grants defendant's motion to stay in declaratory judgment action pending application of first-filed rule by other federal district where infringement action was first-filed

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 11 2012

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., Civil Action Nos. 11-890-SLR and 12-204-SLR (D.Del., August 6, 2012), the Court granted the motion of defendant Precision Biosciences, Inc. to stay the declaratory judgment actions filed by plaintiff Cellectis S.A. in the District of Delaware pending a determination by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina regarding the applicability of the first-filed rule in the infringement actions filed by Precision against Cellectis in that district

Judge Robinson allows EON's direct infringement claims to proceed, but dismisses its joint and indirect infringement claims

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 18 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., et al., Civil Action Action No. 10-812-SLR (D.Del., July 12, 2011), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint of plaintiff Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC. (“EON”

Large entity, small entity or micro-entity: which one are you?

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2012

In May, the USPTO issued a proposed rule that will set fees for patent applicants who qualify as “micro-entities.”

Judge Stark denies plaintiffs' motion for TRO and preliminary injunction but indicates court's intent to resolve ownership of patents-in-suit on expedited basis

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 19 2011

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 11-965-LPS (D.Del., November 8, 2011 (public version)), the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking an Order from the Court directing Defendants to file papers in a pending, related investigation by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) seeking dismissal of the ITC proceeding