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 3,612

Reissue is not remedy to terminal disclaimer
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

Affirming a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) rejecting a reissue application as


Federal Circuit rules it's own standards apply when considering preliminary injunctions
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

Addressing the issue of preliminary injunction standards in patent cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when it comes


Section 102(g) is still available as a defense for pre-AIA patents
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

Addressing the issue of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 102(g), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found certain patent claims invalid


Patent enforcement protected by First Amendment?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 24 2014

After receiving a draft complaint and a stipulated order from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banning its allegedly deceptive letters to


Acquiring bare right to sue for copyright infringement is insufficient to confer standing
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 27 2013

In a case of substance triumphing over form, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a company who was effectively assigned the


Who has the burden of proof?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 27 2013

On May 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision (IP Update, Vol. 15, No. 10) that


Claim term can have different constructions depending upon context
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 27 2013

Addressing claim construction of a term used in several different contexts in the asserted patent claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal


What is “a patient?”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 29 2014

On appeal from summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit construed “a patient” to mean “a population of patients,”


A combination of references need only provide a “reasonable expectation of success”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 29 2014

Addressing the validity of a dosing regimen patent in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal


Pre-AIA statute did not give patent owner in an ex parte reexamination the right to bring an action in district court
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 29 2014

Addressing whether a patent owner involved in a pre-America Invents Act (AIA) ex parte reexamination, could challenge an adverse reexamination