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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 172

Federal Circuit ruling clears way for approval of generic version of Fentora

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2013

Addressing allegations of patent infringement by a generic version of Fentora, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in

Generics challenge to Crestor patent fails

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

In a case involving multiple defendants seeking to sell generic versions of the drug rosuvastatin calcium, currently marketed as Crestor, the U

Obviousness-type double patenting requires a reason to modify with a reasonable expectation of success

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

Addressing the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its earlier rulings that obviousness must be judged by whether the differences in subject matter between the new claim and the earlier claim are patentably distinct

“Clear and convincing” is the standard for obviousness no matter what

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

Clarifying the standards and burdens associated with an obviousness analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the presumption of validity and burden of proving obviousness do not change regardless of the facts of a particular case

Federal Circuit affirms structural obviousness analysis

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in addressing the standard for establishing when a chemical compound is obvious based on prior art compounds, reiterated its two-part framework earlier established in Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd. (see IP Update, Vol. 10, No. 7

New complaint filed by Technology Properties Ltd

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2012

Technology Properties Ltd. has filed a new complaint at the ITC seeking an investigation into the importation of Certain Computer and Computer Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same

Microchip Technology files new complaint

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2012

Microchip Technology, Inc. has filed a new complaint at the Commission seeking an investigation into the importation of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same

Target date set in Certain Video Displays Investigation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2012

ALJ Essex has set a target date of June 21, 2013 in Inv. No. 337-TA-828, Certain Video Displays and Products Containing Same

Chief ALJ Bullock rejects summary determination motions

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2012

Chief ALJ Bullock has rejected three motions for summary determination of non-infringement by respondents PHE, Inc., Evolved Novelties, Inc., and Momentum Management, LLC in Inv. No. 337-TA-823, Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof

ALJ Pender denies a non-party motion to quash but grants motion to limit subpoenas issued in 337-TA-808

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2012

On March 9, 2012, ALJ Pender issued an order denying non-party Openwave System Inc.’s (“Openwave”) motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum served by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy