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: 11-20 of 267

Exhaustion doctrine is very exhausting in the United States

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2008

It has taken a long time, but the U.S. Supreme Court has finally ruled in the patent royalties case between LG Electronics and a number of computer manufacturers regarding exhaustion of patent rights in the United States

Thinking of using a contractor for software development? Define any division of intellectual property in writing

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of an unlimited, non-exclusive and implied license to use, modify and retain the source code of programs developed by a contractor for a company, relying on the course of dealings between the parties

Violation of open source licence agreement creates liability for copyright infringement

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • November 6 2008

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that an open source software licence was enforceable and can attract liability for copyright infringement

Anything “meaningful” under the sun: how In re Bilski could impact the subject matter debate in Canada

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • November 14 2008

On October 30, 2008, the penultimate patent court in the United States delivered a much-anticipated decision in the matter of In re Bilski

Computers subject to search - even moms get in on the fun

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 12 2008

Defendant’s majority shareholder, Williams, created and obtained a patent for a hydroelectric generator but couldn’t find any funding to commercialize the invention

Federal grand jury indicts former Intel employee for theft of trade secrets

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 10 2008

In August, federal prosecutors charged Biswamohan Pani, a former Intel Corp. engineer, with theft of trade secrets from his former employer, Intel

U.S. Court of Appeals considers remedies available to licensors of open source software

  • Dentons
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2008

In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court rendered its decision in the case of Robert Jacobson v Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc. (doing business as KAM Industries

ECJ denies absolute trade mark protection for superbrands

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 27 2008

The European Court of Justice has today ruled that despite its reputation in respect of computer products, Intel may not automatically prevent third parties applying identical or similar trade marks to dissimilar goods in this case INTELMARK applied to marketing services on the grounds that such use inevitably takes unfair advantage of or causes detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the famous INTEL trade mark

In Re Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw: will Bilski stop “business method” patents in the U.S.?

  • Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 17 2008

In a much anticipated en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (F.C.C.A.), the criteria for patentability of “processes” in software, business method and computer-implemented inventions appears to have been altered by a majority opinion in the Bilski case, favoring a newly resurrected “machine-or-transformation test” over the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” analysis that had been relied upon since the release of the famous State Street Bank decision a decade ago

Federal Circuit clarifies the test for patent eligibility in process claim

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 12 2009

In the case In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Federal Circuit revisited the standard for determining whether a process claim is eligible for patent protection under 101 of the Patent Act