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 166

Adding Pre-Existing Technology Won’t Save a Patent-Ineligible Claim
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 3 2017

In the recent FairWarning and Synopsys cases (IP Update, Vol. 19, No. 11), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the challenged


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


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


Petitioner wins uncontested Alice fight
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 30 2015

In a decision to institute post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) clarified the importance of corroboration to


Supreme Court affirms clear and convincing standard of patent invalidity proof
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2011

Delivering what is likely the final blow to its battle against a $240 million infringement judgment, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously rejected Microsoft’s plea to modify the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof required to invalidate a patent


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


CBM Review Denied for Technological Invention Directed to Financial Product
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 28 2016

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may deny Covered Business Method (CBM) review if the challenged patent is for a technological


Alice strikes again!
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing the issue of patent eligibility under 101, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of 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