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 652

Surrender Dorothy: Court Upholds Damages, Injunction for Movie Content Infringement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 3 2017

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from licensing images


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


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


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


Twenty-one day safe harbor applies to Rule 11- no matter what
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the service and filing of a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 must occur prior to final judgment or judicial rejection of the offending motion in order to prevail


Who is “substantively involved” in patent prosecution for Rule 56 purposes?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In a case of first impression for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court addressed which individuals are “substantively involved” in the preparation or prosecution of a patent application and thus owe a duty of candor and good faith to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under 37 C.F.R. 1.56


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


Adidas wins US case against two and four stripe
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 10 2008

Less than a month after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in Adidas v Marca Mode 2008 C-10207, Adidas has won a U.S.$305 million payout in the United States from Collective Brands in a lawsuit seven years in the making


Parent company denied recovery for lost profits of subsidiary
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in the damages phase of 18-year-old litigation, denying recovery for lost profits


Preamble language presumed to provide context, not impose limitations
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 31 2008

Addressing the rules of claim construction pertaining to preambles and preferred embodiments, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement