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 15,528

CBM review cannot proceed if petitioner filed civil suit challenging patent’s validity prior to filing review petition

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

Addressing the circumstances under which a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review may proceed, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO

Supplemental information authorization hard to come by

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) denied a motion by a petitioner to file a motion for supplemental information to introduce the

PTAB denies motion to amend a motion to amend; reason: delay

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In response to patent owner’s request to file a motion to amend a motion to amend made approximately one month before oral hearing, the U.S. Patent

Federal Circuit remands trio of attorneys’ fee award cases back to district courts

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In the span of 10 days, and in the wake of the U.S Supreme Court decisions of last spring in Icon Health & Fitness, v. Octane Fitness(IP Update, Vol

Motions to amend hard to come by

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In a Final Written Decision the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all instituted claims unpatentable and denied patent owner’s motion to

No motivation to combine where combination requires complete redesign

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In a final written decision for two consolidated Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and

PTAB designates two recent decisions as informative

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) recently designated as “informative” two decisions earlier released from concluded Inter Partes Review

Patent owners: better address all obviousness arguments raised by petitioner

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In a final written decision addressing an obviousness challenge, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the

First final CBM decision invalidates patent under 101

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In the first final written decision issued in a Covered Business Method (CBM) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) ruled

PTAB on analogous art

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

In a final written decision addressing the patentability of claims challenged as obvious, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and