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 103

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

Cross Match Technologies files appeal with Federal Circuit in biometric scanning devices investigation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 21 2011

On October 18, complainant Cross Match Technologies filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit of the Commission's decision in Inv. No. 337-TA-720, Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same

Joint (direct) infringement still requires control but stay tuned

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2011

A sharply divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the requirements for direct infringement if more than one party performs the steps of the patented method, ruled that the doctor-patient relationship was insufficient to show that the patient was acting under the direction or control of the doctor. McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., Case No. 10-1291 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2011) (Linn, J.) (Bryson, J. concurring) (Newman, J., dissenting

Initial determination finds respondent Satistec, LLC in default

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 17 2010

Chief ALJ Luckern held that respondent Satistec, LLC failed to show cause for its failure to respond to the notice of investigation and, thus, issued an Initial Determination finding Satistec in default in Inv. No. 337-TA-732, In the Matter of Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereof

ALJ Bullock denies summary determination motions in Inv. No. 337-TA-704

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2010

ALJ Bullock issued two orders denying summary determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communication Devices and Components Thereof

ALJ Pender denies a non-party motion to quash but grants motion to limit subpoenas issued in 337-TA-808

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2012

On March 9, 2012, ALJ Pender issued an order denying non-party Openwave System Inc.’s (“Openwave”) motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum served by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”

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

Inv. No. 337-TA-773 terminated as to respondents Optoma Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc.

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 7 2011

On September 6, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued an initial determination that granted a joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing the Same, as to Respondents Optoma Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc. (collectively “Optoma”

ALJ Charneski sets prehearing conference date in Inv. No. 337-TA-602

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2010

On August 25, ALJ Charneski issued an order setting September 8, 2010 as the date for a prehearing conference in Inv. No. 337-TA-602, Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same

Amended procedural schedule set in Inv. No. 337-TA-750

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 9 2011

On August 9, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an order granting a joint motion to amend the procedural schedule to amend certain dates to permit additional time for certain pre-hearing events and to facilitate the efficient completion of prehearing submissions