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: 11-20 of 155

Got a cease and desist letter from a patent troll? Do your homework

  • Thompson Coburn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

In my last post, I detailed some of the first steps you should take if you ever receive a cease and desist letter from a claimed patent owner. (Most

PTAB grants request for rehearing relating to procedure for serving petitions

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

In an order granting a request for rehearing to address the issue of a filing date of a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and

PTAB threatens sanctions for unauthorized e-mails

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

Addressing a patent owner’s unauthorized e-mail arguing for additional discovery and the petitioner’s likewise unauthorized responsive e-mail, an

CAFC rules on issues of claim construction, infringement, evidence, and reasonably royalty determination

  • Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2014

The CAFC affirmed the district court’s construction of “domain name” as “a name corresponding to an IP address,” rejecting Appellant’s argument that

IP snapshot

  • CMS Cameron McKenna
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 21 2012

The High Court has refused to grant a stay of proceedings for infringement of a Community Trade Mark under Article 104(1) of the CTM Regulation where there were parallel proceedings before OHIM

It’s no yolk: the dangers of using webpages as anticipatory evidence in New Zealand patent oppositions

  • Houlihan2
  • -
  • New Zealand
  • -
  • February 25 2014

A recent Patent Opposition Decision by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand ("IPONZ"), Quirky, Inc. v Hamish Dobbie 2014 ("the Case"

Patentable subject matter clarity or prolonged confusion?

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 21 2011

It’s back to the “check-out” counter for Amazon.com’s (Amazon) “one-click” patent application

Multidistrict panel denies transfer in patent infringement action involving multiple defendants and patents in different district courts

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 26 2011

Plaintiffs asserted patents relating to computer-based messaging products and services against numerous defendants, including Facebook, LinkedIn, ETrade and Verizon in two different district courts

Business method patents in Canada now just one click away

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 18 2010

On October 14, 2010 the Federal Court released its highly anticipated decision in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) quashing the rejection by the Commissioner of Patents (the “Commissioner”) of the now infamous Amazon.com ‘one-click’ patent on the basis that the claimed invention was a business method and not patentable subject matter

Facebook's patent acquisitions? They're more about Google than Yahoo

  • Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 5 2012

In the past few months, Facebook’s patent portfolio has grown exponentially as a result of acquisitions of patent portfolios from IBM and Microsoft