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 163

Evolving Post-Alice Law on Patent Eligibility
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 29 2016

In two recent cases addressing patent eligibility of software patent claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the challenged


First application of Alice Corp. decision to covered business method patent review
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 8 2014

In determining whether a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review should be instituted, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) referred to 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


Insurance form processing qualifies as a “financial service or product” for CBM review
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 30 2015

In a series of decisions addressing whether an abstract idea involves “financial product or service” in the context of Covered Business Method (CBM


Intrinsic Feature in All Described Embodiments Makes Claim Insurmountable
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 28 2016

Addressing issues of claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court, finding that that no reasonable


An accused device is “modified” by the installation of software
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 5 2014

Revisiting the wording of claims that recite a combination of hardware and software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a


What constitutes a covered business method patent?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing a request for rehearing and to expand the panel, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that it did not abuse its


“Providing . . . Information” to Medical Providers Is Not Given Patentable Weight
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 5 2016

Addressing the application of the "printed matter" doctrine, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that claim elements directed


Limits on the use of the disclosure-dedication rule under doctrine of equivalents
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether the disclosure of subject matter in a document incorporated by reference amounts to a dedication of that subject matter to the public under the Johnson & Johnston disclosure-dedication rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that the host patent must first sufficiently inform one of ordinary skill that the incorporated document contains subject matter that is an alternative to a claim limitation before the dedication rule can be used to limit equivalents


Federal Circuit affirms jury verdict of invalidity based on on-sale bar and public use
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 28 2012

Affirming the district court’s judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cleared Facebook of allegations of patent infringement, finding that that the patent in suit was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because the patentee’s product which embodied the patented subject matter was on sale and in public use more than one year before the filing of the patent