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 1,831

Patent prosecution update: September 2013
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • September 19 2013

Although "the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning," Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362


S.D.N.Y. holds Urban Outfitters liable for infringing textile design
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 18 2014

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently awarded an Amsterdam-based accessories company a permanent injunction


“Technical invention” exclusion tempers broad “financial service” interpretation in CBM institution decision
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 19 2014

When is a patent directed at financial services not a "covered business method" under Section 18(d) of the AIA? When it claims a "technological


B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 2013 WL 1810614 (8th Cir. May 1, 2013)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2013

Plaintiff B&B Hardware Inc. (“B&B”) has produced industrial fasteners for the aerospace industry under the mark SEALTIGHT since 1990. B&B’s SEALTIGHT


U.S. bankruptcy laws may prevent a patent licensor from using foreign bankruptcy proceedings to cancel patent cross-licenses and impose new royalty-bearing licenses
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 11 2014

Under U.S. bankruptcy laws, the trustee of a bankrupt party often has the ability to terminate existing contracts that negatively impact the value of


District courts continue to grant majority of post-grant-related motions to stay
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2013

Of the 537 IPR petitions and 56 CBM petitions filed as of October 8, 2013, 87 challenged a concurrently litigated patent


Streaming Under 101: No Affinity for Patent Against Music Store App
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2016

In Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 15-2080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed another invalidity


Markman hearings and their critical role in U.S. patent litigation
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2009

When Inventors and Attorneys put pen to paper and transfer an inventor's idea to writing, they are naturally limited by the words of their own language


District Court addresses whether patent prosecution bar extends to IPR proceedings
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2013

In ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc. IPR2013-00179 (JL), Paper 9 (April 16, 2013), the Board denied ScentAir's request to file a motion


The continuing (r)evolution of injunctive relief in the district courts and the International Trade Commission
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • February 28 2013

What is the patent right? The patent statute states that "every patent shall contain . . . A grant . . . Of the right to exclude others from making