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 639

The top five intellectual property traps in M&A transactions
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2010

In M&A transactions, many lawyers assume that intellectual property (IP) rights will automatically transfer with the purchase and that IP issues can be cured by general representations and warranties


Teachings incorporated by reference for anticipation purposes need not be individually named
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 28 2009

Finding that material not explicitly contained in the single, prior art document may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if incorporated by reference into the document, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s summary judgment that patents were not invalid for anticipation


Massachusetts attorney’s lien statute applies to patent prosecution costs
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2009

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined, in a case of first impression, that Massachusetts’s attorney’s lien statute permits placing a lien on a patent (and any proceeds later derived from that patent) for legal fees earned while representing a client before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO


Two-way test for obviousness type double patenting narrowly applied
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the two-way test for obviousness-type double patenting is applicable when the claims could have been presented in an earlier application in the family


Defense of laches in patent cases to be reviewed en banc
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has order for en banc review of the defense of latches in patent cases in order to evaluate the


Trademark owner’s ability to stop repackaging of authentic goods remains limited
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 29 2008

Addressing the reach of the Supreme Court’s landmark Coty decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld a grant of summary judgment to defendants who repackaged plaintiff’s products with a disclaimer, holding that there was no issue of material fact and that the packages “cannot cause confusion.”


USPTO announces interim procedure for requesting recalculation of patent term adjustment under Wyeth v. Kappos
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 28 2010

On January 7, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that patentees, Wyeth and Elan Pharma International Ltd., were entitled to extended patent term adjustments (PTA) because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office misinterpreted the statute 35 U.S.C. 154(b), which provides for patent term adjustment (PTA) for certain USPTO delays


Claiming computer readable media
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 28 2010

Refining its previous guidance regarding patent eligible subject matter, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a formal suggestion to applicants pursuing applications directed to computer readable media


eBay not liable for sales of counterfeit Tiffany jewelry
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2010

Upholding a district court’s 2008 ruling that eBay was not liable for trademark infringement based on sales of counterfeit Tiffany & Co. jewelry on eBay’s website, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an online service provider must possess more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods in order to impose contributory trademark infringement liability


Patent assignment recorded at USPTO creates a rebuttable presumption of a valid assignment
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2010

Addressing the burdens of proof associated with a standing challenge based on the validity of an assignment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (USITC’s) determination that the recordation of a patent assignment at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) created a rebuttable presumption of a valid assignment which shifted the burden to rebut that presumption to the party challenging standing