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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 146

Look to the Specification Before Leaping to CBM Conclusions
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2016

Addressing the standard for instituting a covered business method (CBM) review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that the


No CBM Carve Out for Graphical User Interfaces
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2016

Addressing the scope of covered business method (CBM) patent review and clarifying the application of the "real party in interest" in joint defense


A Patent Can Be a CBM Patent for One Proceeding and Not for Another
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2016

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found challenged claims directed to data security to be subject to covered business method (CBM


Advertisement and Subsidy Program Qualifies as Financial Product or Service Under Broad CBM Definition
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2016

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the broad applicability of the financial prong of the eligibility test for covered business


Previously Denied Section 101 Defense Rendered Meritorious by the Supreme Court’s Alice Decision
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 25 2016

Addressing a summary judgment of patent ineligibility, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the


Data-encryption is patent eligible despite not being tied to a particular machine
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 31 2014

Addressing an argument that a data-encryption patent was directed to non-eligible subject matter because it covered an abstract idea divorced from a


Pre-Issuance Damages Possible Only If You “Know” About the Published Application
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 30 2016

Addressing for the first time the notice requirement for pre-issuance damages under 35 USC 154(d), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Reversal of Narrow Claim Construction Results in Satisfaction of Claim Element
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 25 2016

Addressing the standard to establish a “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer of claim scope during prosecution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the


Invalidating a patent on a motion to dismiss is proper
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not find the patentee’s infringement suit to be objectively baseless, notwithstanding that the


Yet another court weighs in on FRAND rates (this time for Wi-Fi)
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2013

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after a bench trial limited to the issue of determining a FRAND rate for licensing a