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 177

Court determines RAND rate for standard-essential patents

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

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington became the first U.S. court to set fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND or

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

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

Federal Circuit reverses ITC violation of its own rules

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 8 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling by the International Trade Commission (ITC, the Commission), finding that, under

New complaint filed by Rovi Corporation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 28 2011

Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Gemstar Development Corporation filed a letter on July 26, 2011, requesting that the International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 covering Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology

Wrongful injunction raises presumption of recovery of bond

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that wrongfully enjoined parties are entitled to a presumption in favor of recovery against an injunction bond for provable damages

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

Actions under 337 based on inducement require existence of direct infringement prior to importation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 17 2013

In a case of first impression, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ruled that an exclusion order based on a violation of

“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

ITC issues general exclusion order based on respondents’ “willful blindness” and potential to evade order

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2011

The International Trade Commission reversed an administrative law judge’s finding of no induced infringement and issued a general exclusion order, in Inv