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


The Patent Reform Act of 2007: patent reform legislation aims to harmonize the United States patent system
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 30 2007

On May 16, 2007, Congress took a significant step towards revamping the United States patent system when a House subcommittee approved the latest patent reform bill for further review by the full Judiciary committee


A dismissal for lack of standing should generally be without prejudice
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 27 2009

Addressing yet another standing dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a dismissal for lack of standing with prejudice, noting the general rule that a dismissal on that basis should ordinarily be without prejudice


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


Federal Circuit affirms injunction, but reverses contempt finding against Apotex
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 30 2007

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s expansion of an earlier injunction via a contempt proceeding, but reversed the finding of contempt against Apotex for violating the earlier injunction


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


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


No right of compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act after the patent grant
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

Addressing the Invention Secrecy Act , 35 U.S.C. 181 et seq., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California that section 183 of the Act does not give a right to compensation for government use that occurred after patent grant as any apparent remedy was under 28 U.S.C. 1498


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