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 44

New legal maneuver helps companies stymie business-method patent litigation

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 13 2014

If you or your customers face lawsuits or licensing demands alleging infringement of patents relating to the use of computers or the internet for

Is “insolubly ambiguous” the correct standard to determine compliance with Sec 112?

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on a petition challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standard for determining when

Rembrandt v. Facebook: district court excludes damage expert where expert failed to apportion damages to patented features in accused product

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 11 2013

Rembrandt Social Media, LP ("Rembrandt") filed a patent infringement action against Facebook alleging that Facebook infringed two of its patents

Smart search concepts files patent-infringement lawsuits against fashion retailers

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 17 2013

On June 7-8, 2013, patent-licensing entity Smart Search Concepts LLC filed nine similar patent-infringement lawsuits targeting fashion retailers Gap

Can a website disclaimer prevent declaratory judgment actions in IP cases? Maybe...or maybe not

  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2013

A decision this week from the Federal Circuit, in a patent invalidity action, has been getting a lot of press for its suggestion that patent (and by

May edition of notable cases and events in e-discovery

  • Sidley Austin LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 6 2013

This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: A Northern District of Illinois ruling

Induced infringement: Federal Circuit joint AkamaiMckesson decision changes the law

  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2013

For years, courts have struggled with the concept of induced infringement. 35 U.S.C. 271(b) states that "whoever actively induces infringement

CAFC finds that adapting well-known methods of doing business to the Internet is obvious as a matter of law

  • King & Spalding LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 4 2013

Sovereign brought a patent infringement suit against Newegg for infringement of certain claims in three U.S. patents, all relating to electronic

Nothing non-obvious about applying pre-existing technology to the Internet

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2013

Addressing the issue of obviousness of patents directed to Internet-based software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a

Function Media, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2012-1020 (Fed. Cir. Feb 13, 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2013

Special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations require the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function