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 1,989

Computer-implemented business transaction claim must describe an “inventive concept” to be patent eligible

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing subject matter eligibility of claims purporting to apply abstract mental processes directed to business transactions using computers, the

Too much incorporation by reference dooms IPR petition

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

In a decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) of several

Transformative use in the Seventh Circuit

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on fair use, but cited different

Doctrine of equivalents requires full analysis

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing doctrine of equivalents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a finding of no infringement by a lower court

Not all vice presidents are officers and entitled to corporate indemnification

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing the meaning of the term “officer” in a company’s bylaws, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s summary

Diaper maker’s patent claims soiled by delay

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

This case relates to adult incontinence products. The district court, based on a delay of more than six-years in filing the lawsuit, held that the

PTAB does not rely on district court’s Markman decision in construing claim terms

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing allegations of impropriety of district court judges that purportedly led to a “tainted” claim construction ruling, the U.S. Patent and

PTAB denies motion to amend for failure to show patentability

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing a patent owner’s motion to amend by cancelling claims and substituting claims, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and

Specificity and negotiation are the buzz words for IPR discovery

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing a patent owner’s request for additional discovery, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) denied the

No motivation to combine where combination requires complete redesign

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In a final written decision for two consolidated Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and