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 175

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

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

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

New complaint filed by Interdigital Technology

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

InterDigital Communications LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing Inc. filed a letter on July 26, 2011, requesting that the International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 covering Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof

ALJ Bullock denies summary determination motions in Inv. No. 337-TA-704

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2010

ALJ Bullock issued two orders denying summary determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communication Devices and Components Thereof

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

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

Joint (direct) infringement still requires control but stay tuned

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

A sharply divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the requirements for direct infringement if more than one party performs the steps of the patented method, ruled that the doctor-patient relationship was insufficient to show that the patient was acting under the direction or control of the doctor. McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., Case No. 10-1291 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2011) (Linn, J.) (Bryson, J. concurring) (Newman, J., dissenting

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

Acting Chief ALJ Bullock denies motion to consolidate 784 and 785 investigations

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 23 2011

Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock denied a motion to consolidate investigations filed by Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (“LG") in Investigation No. 337-TA-785, Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (“785 Investigation”