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 648

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


Antitrust claims against patent pool
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2008

In a terse non-precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 2006 district court order dismissing antitrust claims against participants in an international patent pool arrangement


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


License to “make” includes an inherent right to “have made”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that a license to make a patented article includes an inherent right to have a third party make the article absent express language to the contrary


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


Statutory damages: foreign works and the U.S. live broadcast exemption
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 16 2009

In a class action led by the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) and U.S. music publishers Bourne against YouTube and its owners Google (The FAPL v YouTube Inc. (US District Court Southern District of New York)) filed on 4 May 2007, a U.S. District Court judge held that, because the FAPL did not register its broadcasts of Premier League matches with the US Copyright Office, it cannot claim statutory damages under the US Copyright Act against YouTube in respect of allegedly copyright infringing material uploaded by users to the video sharing site


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


Sublicensee’s purchase of licensee not prohibited under the license agreement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a sublicensee of patent and trademark rights that purchased its sublicensor in order to


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