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 38

Technology transfer agreements: EU promulgates new antitrust rules

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • April 30 2014

The licensing of technology is core to the business model of many companies operating in IP-sensitive industries. Its commercial benefits are myriad

Bilski-based rejections of computer-implemented claims continue to be issued by board of appeals

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2010

In a decision applying the Bilski "machine-or-transformation test" (see IP Update, Vol. 11, No. 11), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) continued its practice of invalidating computer implemented method claims under 101

Failure to prove exhaustion of trade mark rights

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 26 2010

In Sun Microsystems Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd 2009 EWHC 2992 (Pat), Mr Justice Kitchin held that Sun Microsystems Inc was entitled to summary judgment in respect of the parallel import of computer equipment by M-Tech Data Ltd

High Court of England and Wales assesses issues of liability and damages in misuse of customer database

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 7 2013

In a case concerning the misuse of a customer database, the High Court of England and Wales has assessed damages for breach of confidence

Thinking of using a contractor for software development? Define any division of intellectual property in writing

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of an unlimited, non-exclusive and implied license to use, modify and retain the source code of programs developed by a contractor for a company, relying on the course of dealings between the parties

Software compilation trade secret claims must be analyzed separately from other software trade secret claims

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2009

Reviving a significant trade secret misappropriation claim brought by a software company against a company started by its former employees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an alleged trade secret claim based on an entire software compilation must be analyzed separately from other software trade secret claims

No infringement arises from the use of a trade mark within a computer system

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 31 2008

Rx Works Limited v Hunter 2007 EWHC 3061 (Ch) concerned a dispute of the use of the term “vet.local”

No pre-verdict JMOL motions, no review of jury damage award

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a permanent injunction and an award of $240 million in damages against Microsoft for patent infringement in connection with certain versions of MS Word software that offer XML editing functionality

English court confirms claims to computer program claims are patentable subject matter

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 29 2008

The English High Court has now handed down a decision which moves the UK position on software claims back into line with that of the European Patent Office (EPO) and other mainland European Agencies

Factual expert declaration is vital to avoid summary judgment

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed a special master’s determination that, in the context of a means plus function claim element, the patentee’s technical expert failed to tie the accused device to the corresponding structures found in the patent specification