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

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.”

Finally an answer to the question about whether the Supreme Court guidelines apply to parent coordinators appointed in counties outside of the pilot program

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 14 2012

An issue that has vexed us in the past is whether the rules enacted by the Supreme Court regarding parent coordinators were to be applied to all parent coordinators appointed by the Court

USPTO offers patent applicants option to supplement disclosure of prior art after paying issue fee

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

When filing a patent application, all inventors and others involved with the application are required to inform the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) if they are aware of any prior art that may be material to patentability

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

Copyright (and patent) misuse - it's narrower than you think

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2011

The copyright misuse doctrine does not prohibit a copyright owner from requiring that licensees use the copyrighted work only on it own products