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 47

Yet another court weighs in on FRAND rates (this time for Wi-Fi)

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

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after a bench trial limited to the issue of determining a FRAND rate for licensing a

The hacker who avoided a false marking claim

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of a false marking complaint, finding that the complaint failed to properly allege an “unpatented article” under 35 U.S.C. 292

ITC institutes investigation of wireless devices requested by Linex Technologies, Inc.

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2011

On June 2, 2011, the International Trade Commission agreed to institute an investigation regarding Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same

Common sense variation is unpatentable

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

Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a common-sense variation of known technology is unpatentable

Federal Circuit issues opinion in Pass & Seymour v. ITC

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2010

On August 27, 2010 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the International Trade Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-615, that certain accused products produced by Respondents General Protecht Group, Wenzhou Trimone Science and Technology Electric Co. Ltd. and Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corporation do not infringe the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,594,398 and 7,212,386, held by Complainant Pass & Seymour, Inc

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

Procedural schedule set in Inv. No. 337-TA-781

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 3 2011

On August 2, 2011, ALJ Bullock issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-781, Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same

ALJ issues final initial determination and recommends remedy in Inv. No. 337-TA-734

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 3 2011

ALJ Gildea issued a public version of his Initial Determination and Recommended Remedy in Inv. No. 337-TA-734, Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software

ALJ Rogers issues final initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-723

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 5 2011

ALJ Rogers issued his Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof

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