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 225

How the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank undermines the USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2014

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, finding that patents directed to "a

USPTO asks for patent subject matter eligibility comments by July 31, 2014

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2014

In a June 30, 2014 Federal Register Notice, the USPTO requested public comments by July 31, 2014 on patent subject matter eligibility under the

Why are method of treatment claims and method of manufacture claims subject to scrutiny under the USPTO patent subject matter eligibility guidance?

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 15 2014

The USPTO has asked for written comments on its patent subject matter eligibility guidance by July 31, 2014. In this article, I discuss why

Federal Circuit says Commission must toe the line in Invisalign ITC case

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2014

In Align Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that ITC action that violated ITC's own regulations warranted

Federal Circuit looks for a different kind of unexpected results in BMS v. Teva

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 2 2014

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude patent

Federal Circuit vacates infringement of Braintree SUPERP patent

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 29 2014

In a divided opinion issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court on one of two challenged

USPTO finally updates Patent Term Adjustment calculator--sort of

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 20 2014

In a Federal Register Notice issued May 15, 2014, the USPTO announced that its Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculator finally has been updated to

Federal Circuit finds Consumer Watchdog lacks standing to appeal reexamination decision upholding WARF stem cell patent

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2014

In Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the Federal Circuit held that an inter partes reexamination requester must establish an

Is evidence of obviousness always required?

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2014

In KS HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that upheld the

USPTO proposes revised Patent Term Adjustment rules for RCEs under Novartis

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2014

The USPTO has published proposed rules for calculating Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for applications in which a Request for Continued Examination