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 326

Two additional patent cases before the Supreme Court may fit a trend toward more limited liability

  • Fennemore Craig
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 23 2015

The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari in two more patent related cases regarding: invalidity as a defense to induced infringement; and payment of

Department of Justice will not challenge IEEE’s proposed updates to its standard-setting patent policy

  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2015

On February 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) announced that it will not challenge a proposed update to the Institute

DOJ issues business review letter pertaining to SSO policy on standard-essential patents and RAND commitments

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 12 2015

On February 2, 2015, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a business review letter stating that it would not

DOJ releases electrifying new guidance on standard-essential patent policy

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 10 2015

The Department of Justice (the "Department" or "DOJ") continued its multi-pronged defense of standards-setting organizations (SSOs) who adopt patent

DOJ provides new guidance on required licensing of essential patents in standard-setting

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 6 2015

DOJ recently concluded that a standard-setting organization's proposal to update its policy regarding patents underlying its standards was

U.S. Dept. of Justice issues business review letter not challenging the IEEE IPR policy change

  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2015

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has published a business review letter that it will not challenge the Institute of

In re Modafinil litigation finds no “threshold burden” in reverse payment suit

  • Kaye Scholer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2015

On Wednesday, January 28, in King Drug Company of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc. (In re Modafinil), the US District Court for the Eastern District

Post-Actavis rulings focus on what constitutes a payment in reverse-payment settlements

  • Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 21 2015

Nearly a year and a half after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013), the hotly

IPtronix sues Avago for antitrust violations for filing allegedly baseless Section 337 complaint

  • King & Spalding LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2015

On December 29, 2014, IPtronics Inc. and Mellanox Technologies Denmark, APS filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

In re: Nexium plaintiffs seek new trial

  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2015

As reported previously, the first post-Actavis jury verdict in a "reverse payment" antitrust case handed a win to the defendants. Now, plaintiffs in