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 16,239

Failure to address All Graham factors dooms CBM petition

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

Addressing the showing required to institute Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings based on obviousness, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Not so “routine discovery” in AIA proceedings

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

In two orders issued from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB or Board) in unrelated proceedings, the PTAB

Ineligible subject matter in one court is still ineligible in another

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

Addressing the issue of whether the court was bound by another court’s holding that a patent was invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible

Joint motions to terminate pre-institution IPRs should explain why termination is appropriate

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

Addressing what information “should” be in a joint motion to terminate proceedings at the pre-institution stage, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Prior art-related submissions that go to the merits are supplemental “evidence,” not supplemental “information”

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

Addressing whether prior-art-related submissions by a petitioner in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding are supplemental information under 37 C.F

Patent owner’s General Counsel allowed to substitute designated counsel at oral hearing

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

Addressing a patent owner’s request in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) to be excused from attending the oral hearing in view of the financial burden

Claims directed to a mental task are abstract, but computerizing an old practice is not

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

Addressing the issue of patent-eligible subject matter for Covered Business Method (CBM) patents, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial

District courts should not nit-PIC

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

Addressing the issue of when it is appropriate to issue sanctions for deficient Preliminary Infringement Contentions (PICs) (under state court

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

Patentee may cancel but may not substitute claims when proposed amended claims are not shown to be unobvious

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

Addressing the burden of establishing the patentability of claim amendments in Inter Partes Review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent