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 134

Post-Grant PTAB Procedures Are Constitutional
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2016

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR


Federal Circuit Limits the Safe Harbor Provision and the Scope of 271(g)
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 23 2015

Addressing issues of infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) and the safe harbor provision of 271(e), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal


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


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


Federal Circuit clarifies entire market value rule, hypothetical negotiation date and use of settlement agreements
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 6 2012

In LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned an $8.5 million lump sum jury award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages


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


A Solution to Business Problems May Not Be a Technological Invention
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 23 2015

Addressing the standard for instituting a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, as well as patent eligibility issues under 35 U.S.C. 101, the


Stays of litigation warranted even when the CBM review does not address all asserted claims or all invalidity defenses
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 30 2014

Addressing the denial of a stay pending the covered business method (CBM) review of some, but not all, asserted claims in a district court action, the


Standing requires articulation of jurisdictional facts
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 30 2014

Addressing a petition for a covered business method (CBM) patent review, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or


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