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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 12

Non-Practicing Entities (patent trolls) target oil and gas companies

  • King & Spalding LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 2 2013

As the number of patent infringement lawsuits brought by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) has increased, oil and gas companies have increasingly become

General counsel update

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • China, European Union, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mongolia, Singapore, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • July 11 2012

This is the thirtieth in our series of general counsel updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas

The extent of patent coverage in offshore waters: a comparison

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • South Africa, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

Patents are often said to be defined by their claims and, as such, are analogous in the parlance of real property to the “metes and bounds” of a deed to real property

Federal Circuit clarifies rights of appeal of International Trade Commission decisions

  • Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2012

On February 29, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in General Elec. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2010-1223 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2012

Jury awards more than $35 million in damages to Halliburton in patent infringement lawsuit against Weatherford International

  • Baker Botts LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2012

A Dallas federal court jury unanimously found Weatherford International, Inc. liable for infringing on Halliburton Energy Services Inc.’s ground-breaking Patent related to drillable composite plugs used in underground drilling operations following an eight-day trial and two days of deliberations that ended on February 17, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court’s Bilski ruling is welcome news for Asian clean energy innovators

  • Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski ensures that the door to patenting business method inventions remains open in America

Noteworthy cases in the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 term

  • Larkin Hoffman
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 21 2011

The first Monday in October represents the start of a new term for the United States Supreme Court

Fraud must be pled with particularity in false marking cases (In Re. BP Lubricants USA Inc.)

  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 22 2011

Thomas A. Simonian, a patent attorney, filed a qui tam complaint on behalf of the United States pursuant to the False Marking Statute, 35 U.S.C. 292, against BP Lubricants USA Inc. (BP), alleging that BP falsely marked its CASTROL motor oil products with a design patent that had expired on Feb. 12, 2005

Supreme Court patent ruling is good news for cleantech business models

  • Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bilski v. Kappos is good news for clean energy innovators

Supreme Court finds hedging process ineligible for patent

  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 1 2010

In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a hedging process developed for buyers and sellers of commodities in the energy market wasn't eligible for a patent

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy