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 96

"MOOCcs and consequences"

  • Dow Lohnes PLLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 4 2013

Michael Goldstein and Matthew Rizzolo co-authored "MOOCs and Consequences" which was published in College Planning and Management Magazine. It should

Online newsgroup post is a printed publication

  • Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 23 2014

In SUFFOLK Technologies, LLC v. AOL Inc., Appeal No. 13-1392, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment of anticipation

On a plain and ordinary meaning of “embedded” code in a web page

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2014

Addressing a district court’s construction of the claim term “embedded” code as code “written into the HTML code of the web page” and the related

Legal update re Pokerstars 'Zoom Poker' 573 application

  • Dentons
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 9 2014

In a surprising turn of events, after multiple decisive rejections, Pokerstars' "Zoom Poker" patent application (11316,573, published as US

Internet advertising patent saga continues: Supreme Court orders Federal Circuit to reconsider decision in Ultramercial v. Hulu

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 23 2012

In a brief, one paragraph order issued on May 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court hinted that a recent decision covering patent-eligibility for medical testing methods is also relevant to Internet-based methods

Federal Court of Appeal weighs in on business methods

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 25 2011

On November 24, 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal released its highly anticipated decision in the case of Amazon.com’s so called ‘one-click’ patent

Award of attorneys’ fees improper where proposed claim construction is not objectively baseless

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 23 2011

In iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., Nos. 10-1117, -1172 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, concluding that the plaintiff’s proposed claim construction was not objectively baseless

Spanish court allows internet databases to be relied on as prior art

  • Baker & McKenzie
  • -
  • Spain
  • -
  • February 14 2012

A recent case in Spain shows the how on-line patent databases can be used to evidence prior art for national utility models, even where prior art is divulged in different languages

An early present for Amazon Amazon’s one-click patent application allowed by the Canadian Patent Office

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 10 2012

In a surprising move, less than one month after the much publicized Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (AG) v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Commissioner of Patents has allowed Amazon’s “one-click” patent application containing the same claims that were reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal

Motion to dismiss denied under Bilski where plaintiff contended that a computer programmed in a particular way was the invention itself

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 20 2011

Plaintiff's complaint alleged a single count for patent infringement, which asserted that the defendant infringes its patent through the use of an online dating website