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 124

Wireless does not mean “without wires”; “streaming video” does not mean emailing a video file

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 25 2015

Reviewing a final written decision of U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding application claims unpatentable, the U.S. Court of

Online transaction claim held unpatentable

  • Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 27 2014

In BUYSAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., Appeal No. 2013-1575, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of

Internet activity claims are valid subject matter

  • Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 26 2015

In DDR HOLDINGS, LLC v. HOTELS.COM, L.P., Appeal No. 2013-1505, the Federal Circuit held Internet-activity claims recited patentable subject matter

Avoiding PTAB sanctions just play by the rules

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2014

Despite having the authority to sanction parties for misconduct (see 37 C.F.R. 42.12), until the Board’s decision in SAP America et al. V. Lakshmi

Nothing non-obvious about applying pre-existing technology to the Internet

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2013

Addressing the issue of obviousness of patents directed to Internet-based software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a

Smartphone makers sued on violations of wireless e-mail patents

  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2010

Four years after collecting a hefty legal settlement from Research-In-Motion (RIM), the manufacturer of the BlackBerry wireless email device, NTP Inc. last Friday announced the filing of a lawsuit against six smart phone makers that are accused of infringing NTP patents that relate to the wireless transmission of e-mail messages to cell phones

Insurance coverage for e-commerce website-related patent litigation

  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 8 2010

Carmaker Hyundai recently engineered insurance coverage for a patent infringement defense of its website

Markman marksmen take aim in Google v. Traffic Information

  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2010

DJ-plaintiff Google and patentee-defendant Traffic Information ("Traffic") have completed claim construction briefing regarding U.S. patent nos. 6.466,862 PDF and 6,785,606 PDF, which Traffic alleges to be infringed by the traffic feature of Google's Google Maps product

Maker of wireless location software sues Google for patent infringement, contract interference

  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2010

Skyhook Wireless, a manufacturer of location software for wireless smart phones, filed a pair of lawsuits against Google on Wednesday that accuse the web search giant of patent infringement and of interference in a contract arrangement between Skyhook and Motorola that induced Motorola to ship Android cell phones without Skyhook's location software

Leveling the playing field: Amazon.com, Facebook, Microsoft, and others back Netflix, Inc.’s bid for consideration of "exceptional" Patent Case Standard Under 35 U.S.C. 285

  • Williams Mullen
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2010

A number of retailers and technology giants including Amazon.com, Facebook, and Microsoft have filed amicus briefs with the Federal Circuit in support of Netflix, Inc.’s petition for rehearing en banc in Media Queue, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al. Netflix successfully parried Media Queue’s patent infringement charges in California district court, but was denied attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. 256, because the court concluded that the case failed to qualify as "exceptional" under the statute