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 179

ALJ Luckern grants summary determination of non-infringement in Inv. No. 337-ta-709

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 14 2011

ALJ Luckern granted respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic of North America, Victor Company of Japan Limited, JVC America Corp., Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, BestBuy.com, LLC, and Best Buy Stores, L.P., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp., Buy.com Inc., QVC, Inc. Crutchfield Corporation, and Computer Nerds International, Inc. motion finding non-infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,199,306 (‘306 patent

Federal Circuit upholds ITC’s authority to enforce consent order covering third-party products

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the International Trade Commission (ITC, the

Commission decides to review the final initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-724

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2011

On September 2, 2011, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a notice that it will review a final initial determination (“ID”) made in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software

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

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

Commission rescinds portions of limited exclusion order in Inv. no. 337-TA-629

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2011

On October 31, 2011, the Commission issued an order rescinding portions of its exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-629, Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (“the 629 exclusion order”

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

Federal Circuit issues opinion in General Protecht Corp v. ITC

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2010

On August 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion on the appeal from Inv. No. 337-TA-615, General Protecht Corp. v. ITC

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

U.S.-centered negotiations for product made and sold outside United States do not constitute sale or offer for sale in United States

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2014

In a case exploring the limits of what constitutes a sale or offer for sale “within the United States” under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the U.S. Court of