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 125

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


First patents survive inter partes review fully intact
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 29 2014

In the past several months, decisions have been rendered in the first wave of inter partes reviews filed under the American Invents Act (AIA). The


The law of software subject-matter eligibility remains unsettled
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2013

Revisiting the issue of patent subject-matter eligibility in software patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower