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 2,024

Defendant not allowed to appeal denial of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after trial

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant cannot appeal a pretrial denial of a FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after the plaintiff has successfully prevailed at trial on the claim at issue because the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint is irrelevant

Who’s in charge is the board responsible to monitor its financial advisor or vice versa?

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 21 2014

In the case of In re Rural Metro Corporation Stockholders Litigation, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held that the primary financial

Teachings incorporated by reference for anticipation purposes need not be individually named

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2009

Finding that material not explicitly contained in the single, prior art document may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if incorporated by reference into the document, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s summary judgment that patents were not invalid for anticipation

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

Taxpayer overcomes New Jersey amnesty penalty

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 16 2014

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently affirmed a decision that amnesty and late-filing penalties did not apply to the taxpayers in United Parcel

Three strikestax on cloud computing out in Michigan?

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 3 2014

If the Department of Treasury (Treasury) was hoping that the Michigan courts would simply overlook the previous two cloud computing losses this year

Confidentiality agreements not enforceable in absence of reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Applying Illinois law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reminded prospective business partners that non-disclosure agreements will

Endo finds pain relief from board’s “erroneous reasoning”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

Reviewing a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) finding of three patent applications directed to the pain relief formulation known as Opana to be obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI’s decision in two of the applications, but vacated and remanded the BPAI decision in the third application

The extent of patent coverage in offshore waters: a comparison

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • South Africa, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

Patents are often said to be defined by their claims and, as such, are analogous in the parlance of real property to the “metes and bounds” of a deed to real property

Prior art-related submissions that go to the merits are supplemental “evidence,” not supplemental “information”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Addressing whether prior-art-related submissions by a petitioner in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding are supplemental information under 37 C.F