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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 594

Will an IPR result in a stay of co-pending litigation?

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 17 2013

Since September 16, 2012, when the procedure became available, challengers have filed 234 requests for inter partes review. In 82 of these filings

Podcast: Rob Litowitz and Beth Ferrill on 3D printing: IP considerations as technology moves mainstream

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 21 2013

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is becoming more mainstream. As a result, the ability to recreate everyday items at home poses a

Last month at the Federal Circuit

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2012

In InterDigital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, No. 10-1093 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2012), the Federal Circuit held that the ITC erred in construing certain critical claim terms in two patents, reversed the ITC’s finding of no infringement, and remanded the case to the ITC for further proceedings

Last month at the Federal Circuit

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 24 2012

In Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 12-1228 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2012), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction stopping the sale of a generic drug product and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings

Podcast: Robert Pollack and Scott Popma on crowdfunding the startup science and technology portfolio

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 4 2012

In April 2012, the JOBS Act became law amid a rare show of bipartisan support, with the goal of increasing job creation by making it easier for emerging growth companies to access capital

Federal Circuit declines to rehear double patenting case in a split decision

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2010

In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 10-1105, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2010), the Federal Circuit denied Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Lilly”) petition for a rehearing en banc, in a 5-4 vote of a panel decision (Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 10-1105 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2010)) holding claims defining a method of treating cancer with the compound gemcitabine invalid for obviousness-type double patenting

Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 2010 WL 3785147 (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010)

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2010

Plaintiff, an animal-rights activist, searched for her name on defendants' Internet search engines and discovered that her name was listed in search results linked to sexual-dysfunction drugs and pornographic websites

A summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bilski v. Kappos decision

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 1 2010

In its highlyanticipated Bilski v. Kappos decision, issued on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s “machineortransformation” test, which required that a patentable process either be tied to a machine or apparatus or involve a transformation of a particular article into a different state or thing

Campagnolo S.r.l. v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc.,2010 WL 2079694 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2010)

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 1 2010

In evaluating whether a corporation was secondarily liable for false advertising, the district court held that even though the corporation was so closely related to the codefendant that it acted as the codefendant's "parent" company, the corporation was not liable for the actions of the codefendant because there was no evidence that the parent company had knowledge of the advertisements or of their falsity, the parent company did not direct or control the advertisements or cause them to be false, and it did not exercise "complete domination" over the codefendant

Super-Krete Int’l, Inc. v. Sadleir, 2010 WL 1688533 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010)

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2010

Plaintiff sued defendants, a direct competitor in the concreteresurfacing business and its president, for trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting based on defendants' registration and use of a domain name consisting of plaintiff's trademark to direct Internet users to defendants' own website marketing competing products

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy