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 110

Patentable subject matter clarity or prolonged confusion?

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 21 2011

It’s back to the “check-out” counter for Amazon.com’s (Amazon) “one-click” patent application

EU political update 22 - 26 April 2013

  • Clifford Chance LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • April 22 2013

On 16 April, the European Parliament adopted a Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and a fourth edition of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD

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

WiFi "sniffing" ruled not a violation of the Wiretap Act where patent holder sought to collect information that was available over public WiFi networks

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 7 2012

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC ("Innovatio") filed patent infringement actions against various hotels, coffee shops, restaurants and supermarkets for the use of wireless Internet technology located throughout the United States

Function Media, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2012-1020 (Fed. Cir. Feb 13, 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2013

Special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations require the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function

Judge Stark grants British Telecommunication's motion to amend complaint to add new alleged infringement claims against Google

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 29 2012

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P

ESPN loses affirmative defenses and invalidity counterclaim on motion to dismiss but court recognizes unfairness in allowing "bare-bones" infringement complaint while prohibiting defendants from pleading affirmative defenses with brevity

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 19 2012

PageMelding filed a patent infringement action against ESPN asserting a patent that enables internet service and content providers to form mutually beneficial collaborations where website content is customized in accordance with those collaborations

"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

Judge sanctions Samsung for “auto-delete” of relevant emails when litigation was “reasonably foreseeable”

  • Gray Plant Mooty
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2012

In one of the rulings from the recent patent mega-trial between tech giants Apple and Samsung regarding smartphones and tablet computers, the Court (Judge Grewal) granted a request from Apple for an adverse inference instruction that Samsung had “failed to preserve evidence” and that the evidence destroyed could be presumed to be favorable to Apple

Induced infringement: Federal Circuit joint AkamaiMckesson decision changes the law

  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2013

For years, courts have struggled with the concept of induced infringement. 35 U.S.C. 271(b) states that "whoever actively induces infringement