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 1,781

Software audits: strategies for licensees
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • May 8 2014

If you have received a software audit request from your software vendor or one of the industry trade groups representing software publishers, such as


Lower court should have explained post-verdict damages award against Microsoft
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 8 2008

In Amado v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that a federal district court should have explained its basis for increasing a post-verdict award against Microsoft for software sold during the stay of a permanent injunction


Kappos to leave USPTO, confirms support for software patents
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 6 2012

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director David Kappos reportedly plans to leave the position in January 2013


Copies of computer software, made abroad from a master disk sent from the United States, are not supplied from the United States for infringement purposes
  • Vedder Price PC
  • USA
  • September 14 2007

Computers made in another country and loaded with operating system software copied abroad from a master disk supplied from the United States do not infringe under 35 U.S.C. 271(f), according to the U.S. Supreme Court


Accused CPR system does not infringe patent or copyrights
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 31 2007

In Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corp., No. 06-1539 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement of (1) Donald C. Hutchins’s U.S. Patent No. 5,913,685 (“the ’685 patent”); (2) his copyright for the “text of a computer program”; and (3) his copyright for a “Script and Word List.”


Patent claims may (sort of) mix classes of subject matter but who cares?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2008

In a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found patent claims in issue to not be fatally indefinite (for mixing statutory classes of subject matter), the patent owner (Acacia) nevertheless walked away with nothing


Corresponding structure must be an algorithm, not just a computer
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2008

Addressing the issue of when a “means-plus-function” claim element (in the context of a computer-operated invention) suffers from 35 U.S.C. 112, 2 indefiniteness due to the absence of clearly defined corresponding structure, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision on summary judgment, finding all of the claims of the subject patent invalid for indefiniteness


Federal Circuit issues patentability opinions on computer and electronics issues
  • Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • USA
  • October 3 2007

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided two patentability cases of particular interest to the computer and electronics industries


Federal Circuit requires sufficient structure for means-plus-function claims relating to computer-implemented inventions
  • Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • USA
  • April 25 2008

On March 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology, Civ. No. 2007-1419 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2008) held that when the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation is a standard microprocessor programmed to perform an algorithm, the specification must also sufficiently disclose the algorithm


Read between the lines: software licensing issues for banks
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • September 5 2007

Sometimes looks can be deceiving, and when it comes to software licenses, this proverbial phrase certainly applies