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 21,502

Joinder denied when new declaration used in new petition IPR2015-01184
  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • USA
  • August 11 2015

Despite challenging the same claims with the same art, the Board may deny joinder of two proceedings when different expert witnesses are proffered


Parent company is not necessarily real party-in-interest IPR2015-00546
  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • USA
  • August 11 2015

That an alleged real party-in-interest (1) does not provide any payment of legal fees and expenses of a real party-in-interest, and (2) is without


En banc Federal Circuit affirms ITC’s authority to issue exclusion orders for induced infringement of method claims
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • August 11 2015

Reversing an earlier panel decision, the en banc Federal Circuit confirmed that the ITC has the authority to issue exclusion orders against imported


Granting in part request to submit certain supplemental information IPR2015-00423
  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • USA
  • August 7 2015

Supplemental information in the form of a second declaration in support of a petition may be allowed by the Board where the supplemental information


Species Claims Invalidated by Genus Prior Art and a Lack of Secondary Indicia of Non-Obviousness
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 3 2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s finding of patent invalidity on the


PTAB allows evidence of secondary considerations over petitioner’s hearsay objection, but finds claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
  • Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
  • USA
  • October 1 2015

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision finding certain challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586 unpatentable


MN judge orders recall of accused products
  • Fredrikson & Byron PA
  • USA
  • May 19 2015

When should a company facing charges of patent infringement be required to recall the accused products? A recent District of Minnesota decision noted


Final Written Decision IPR2014-00039
  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2015

A prior art reference does not have to disclose the exact terminology used in the claim.In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all of


PTAB rejects Samsung's bid to join its own previously initiated IPR proceeding as an unjustified "second bite at the apple"
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • May 19 2015

In IPR2015-00821, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., sought to join its Petition with a recently


Smartflash v. Apple: after $500m verdict, district court grants new trial on damages based on improper use of entire market value jury instruction
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2015

After a jury returned a verdict against Apple, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The district court subsequently