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 108

Actions under 337 based on inducement require the existence of direct infringement prior to importation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2013

In a case of first impression, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ruled that an exclusion order based on a

Actions under 337 based on inducement require existence of direct infringement prior to importation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 17 2013

In a case of first impression, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ruled that an exclusion order based on a violation of

International Trade Commission addresses use of standard-essential patents in Section 337 investigations

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2013

The International Trade Commission (ITC) addressed for the first time the issue of whether infringement of a patent that has previously been declared

U.S. International Trade Commission addresses use of standard-essential patents in Section 337 investigations

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 8 2013

The U.S. International Trade Commission recently published the final public version of its June 4, 2013, decision, which states that there is nothing

Federal Circuit panel affirms finding of no domestic industry based on ongoing litigation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2013

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission that Motiva, LLC had failed to satisfy the domestic

Federal Circuit ruling clears way for approval of generic version of Fentora

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2013

Addressing allegations of patent infringement by a generic version of Fentora, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in

Generics challenge to Crestor patent fails

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2013

In a case involving multiple defendants seeking to sell generic versions of the drug rosuvastatin calcium, currently marketed as Crestor, the U

Obviousness-type double patenting requires a reason to modify with a reasonable expectation of success

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2012

Addressing the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its earlier rulings that obviousness must be judged by whether the differences in subject matter between the new claim and the earlier claim are patentably distinct

“Clear and convincing” is the standard for obviousness no matter what

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2012

Clarifying the standards and burdens associated with an obviousness analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the presumption of validity and burden of proving obviousness do not change regardless of the facts of a particular case

Federal Circuit affirms structural obviousness analysis

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in addressing the standard for establishing when a chemical compound is obvious based on prior art compounds, reiterated its two-part framework earlier established in Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd. (see IP Update, Vol. 10, No. 7