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 1,803

Advertisers may want to think twice before congratulating a celebrity
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2014

In a recent decision, the recent Seventh Circuit evaluated the inherent conflict between an athlete's right of publicity and the protections of the


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


Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Avenue Photo Inc
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2010

Defendants sold counterfeit third-party jeans to plaintiff


WeatherfordLamb, Inc v. C&J Energy Servs., Inc
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2010

In this cancellation proceeding, Petitioner and Respondent elected to proceed under the TTAB's Accelerated Case Resolution ("ACR") procedure, stipulating to have the TTAB decide the case based on their cross-motions for summary judgment


Court affirms board’s finding of adequate written description and reverses board’s finding of failure to establish actual reduction to practice in an interference
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In Yorkey v. Diab, No. 08-1577 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s denial of Thomas J. Yorkey’s motion seeking invalidity of claims 16-18 and 21 of Mohamed K. Diab et al.’s U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09110,542 (the “Diab application”) for inadequate written description


Hatch-Waxman counterclaim provision does not permit generic manufacturer to challenge use code applied to pioneering manufacturer’s Orange Book listed patent
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., No. 10-1001 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction ordering plaintiffs to replace the current Orange Book use code of a pharmaceutical product with its former use code listing


Court reverses ITC’s findings of non-infringement of Crocs’s design patent and obviousness of utility patent
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 31 2010

In Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 08-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s determinations that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,993,858 (“the ’858 patent”) and D517,789 (“the ’789 patent”) are invalid and not infringed, respectively, and that Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”) had not satisfied the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 337


Accused activities occurring outside the United States found insufficient to support a finding of infringement
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 12 2013

Patent infringement is governed by section 271(a), which applies only to activity "within the United States." Courts often face the question of


District court stays four cases pending PTAB review of CBM patents
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • April 17 2013

Earlier today, Judge Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio stayed four co-pending district court cases involving patents subject to a number of


Means-plus-function claim held invalid as indefinite for failure to identify corresponding structure
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 8 2007

In Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., No. 06-1350 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that claims 13-17 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,602,502 are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2