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 149

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


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


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


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


Inherency is tough to proveeven in IPR
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 8 2014

In four final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that the petitioner had


Supreme Court on evaluation of claims to computer-implemented inventions under 35 U.S.C. 101
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2014

The Supreme Court of the United States has now confirmed that while computer-implemented inventions, such as computer software, remain eligible


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

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided guidance as to what constitutes a patent subject to


Injunction and civil contempt remedy vacated after PTO cancels claim in reexamination
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 8 2014

Addressing whether an injunction and civil contempt were proper after the sole claim on which the injunction was based was cancelled, the U.S. Court


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


Indemnity agreement does not equate to a “real party in interest” to create time-bar for inter partes review
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2014

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) has concluded that an inter partes review of a patent is not time-barred if a petition was filed