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 34

ALJ gildea sets procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-778

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 26 2011

On July 25, 2011, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for Investigation No. 337-TA-778, Certain Equipment for Communication Networks Including Switches, Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones, and Products Containing Same

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

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

Federal Circuit clarifies entire market value rule, hypothetical negotiation date and use of settlement agreements

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2012

In LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned an $8.5 million lump sum jury award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages

ALJ Gildea sets procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-794

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2011

On September 12, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea set the procedural schedule in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794

New investigation 337-TA-726 instituted, assigned to Chief ALJ Luckern

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2010

On July 8, 2010, the Commission issued a notice instituting a section 337 investigation entitled Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-726, based on a complaint filed June 16, 2010

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

Procedural schedule set in Inv. No. 337-TA-784

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2011

On September 15, 2011, ALJ Theodore R. Essex set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-784, Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same, based on the parties joint proposed procedural schedule

Failure to object to improper use of the entire market value rule will constitute waiver

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an infringement verdict for the method claims in a “locked code” products case, but upheld both the infringement verdict on the apparatus claims and the manner in which the Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty factors were applied to damages

Posner to AppleMotorola: no damages, no injunction, no trial

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2012

Judge Posner (of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), sitting by designation, derailed Apple’s and Motorola’s expected patent liability trial when he found that both parties provided insufficient evidence to support either damages or injunctive relief