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 1,727

Court rules cheerleading uniform designs not copyrightable; Sixth Circuit has chance to weigh in
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2014

The Sixth Circuit has an opportunity to consider the copyrightability of clothing design elements. A federal court in Tennessee recently held that


Elcometer, Inc. v. TQC-USA, Inc., 2013 WL 1433388 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2013)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2013

Plaintiff Elcometer, Inc. (“Elcometer”) manufactures handheld coating-thickness gauges and related testing equipment. Elcometer alleged that Defendant


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


Court excludes damages testimony that unpatented collateral products should be included in royalty base
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 22 2014

District-court judges are often said to fulfill a necessary "gatekeeper" function by excluding unreliable testimony of expert witnesses. A recent


Lower court should have explained post-verdict damages award against Microsoft
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 8 2008

In Amado v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that a federal district court should have explained its basis for increasing a post-verdict award against Microsoft for software sold during the stay of a permanent injunction


Federal courts do not have independent jurisdiction to cancel registered trademarks
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 18 2014

Most U.S. trademark practitioners are aware that Section 37 of the Lanham Act gives district courts the power to cancel a trademark registration. But


Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett, No. 5:12-cv-00109 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2013)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2013

American Registry of Radiologic Technicians (“Plantiff”) is a nonprofit organization that develops and administers examinations for individuals


Xereas v. Heiss, 2013 WL 1225392 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2013)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2013

Plaintiff Xereas operated an entertainment business under the mark RIOT ACT. In 2010, Xereas agreed to partner with Defendants Dawson and Heiss


WNET v. Aereo, Inc., 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1341 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2013)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2013

Defendant Aereo, Inc. (“Aereo”) enables its subscribers to watch broadcast television programs over the Internet for a monthly fee. Aereo uses


Can patentees file a terminal disclaimer in a soon-to-expire patent involved in an IPR proceeding to change the claim construction standard applied by the board?
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 23 2014

One advantage of the AIA's new post-grant proceedings over litigating patent validity in federal district court is that the USPTO currently gives