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 641

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


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


Use can be inferred from reliance on trade secrets in developing one’s own technology
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 27 2013

Finding sufficient evidence to support a jury’s verdict, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a $45 million trade secret


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


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


How many examples are needed to support a genus claim?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2008

Revisiting the issue of written description requirement for a genus claim in a biotechnological invention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the lower court did not err in holding that the genus claim is invalid for failure to meet a written description requirement


Empowering customers to sell an exonerated accused product
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

In a decision that expands a customer’s right to defend itself under the Kessler doctrine, the Federal Circuit clarified that a customer is not


Bayer patent is KSR-ed as “obvious to try”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2009

Affirming the district court ruling invalidating Bayer’s patent covering the birth-control drug Yasmin on the basis of obviousness, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that claims to a “microized” (in terms of particle size) drug formulations was an obvious way to try to increase the exposed surface, notwithstanding prior art that said it couldn’t be done


U.S. and European perspectives on patent exhaustion
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union, USA
  • April 9 2009

In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its unanimous opinion in Quanta Computer, Inc. v LG Electronics, Inc


Clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope required for prosecution history estoppel
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 28 2007

Overturning a district court’s finding of prosecution history estoppel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an allegedly disclaiming statement made during prosecution was not a “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer to one skilled in the art