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 5,747

The Intellectual Property Court found that NexPlanar’s polishing pads do not infringe upon Rohm & Haas’s patents

  • Tsar & Tsai
  • -
  • Taiwan
  • -
  • May 17 2013

The first instance of the Intellectual Property Court rendered a decision on April 18, 2013 to dismiss entirely the patent infringement suit filed by

Australian patent journal round-up 16 May 2013

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • May 16 2013

An Australian Patent Opposition, Revocation and Extension of Term Round-Up from the Patent Office Journal dated 16 May 2013. If you wish to oppose

Federal Circuit issues seven opinions on patentability of software innovations

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2013

The en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has divided over whether method and computer-readable media claims and system claims are directed to

Supreme Court sides with Monsanto on issue of patent protection for genetically modified seeds: ruling is a major victory for the biotechnology industry

  • Vedder Price PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2013

In a ruling that has implications for a number of industries, including agriculture and biotechnology, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 13

Federal Circuit refuses to enjoin international arbitration of patent claims

  • Leonard, Street and Deinard
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2013

Just after I posted about the awesome power of federal courts to enjoin other cases, the Federal Circuit reminds us the power is not absolute. In

SCOTUS unanimously rules GM soybean patent infringed

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the "exhaustion doctrine" does not apply in the context of a patented genetically modified (GM) seed, and

ALJ Essex grants motions to terminate investigation as to camus and sidney frank in Certain Products Having Laminated Packaging (337-TA-874)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2013

On May 8, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 10 and Order No. 11 (both dated May 7, 2013) in Certain Products Having

Supreme Court declines to hear Eli Lilly’s “promise of the patent” appeal

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • May 16 2013

The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal today from the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") decision in Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Novopharm Ltd

Supreme Court finds for Monsanto in seed harvesting case

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2013

In Bowman v. Monsanto Co., the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not give a farmer who has bought patented seeds the

Motiva, LLC. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 15 2013

On May 13, 2013, in Motiva, LLC. V. Int'l Trade Comm'n, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Prost, O'Malley) affirmed the