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 86

Thinking of using a contractor for software development? Define any division of intellectual property in writing
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of an unlimited, non-exclusive and implied license to use, modify and retain the source code of programs developed by a contractor for a company, relying on the course of dealings between the parties


Chuck Yeager’s right of publicity suit will no longer fly in the Ninth Circuit
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2012

Addressing several claims stemming out of an allegedly unauthorized publication of signed memorabilia on a website, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendants with respect to numerous claims, finding Chuck Yeager’s submitted declaration to be a sham


Failure to prove exhaustion of trade mark rights
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • February 26 2010

In Sun Microsystems Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd 2009 EWHC 2992 (Pat), Mr Justice Kitchin held that Sun Microsystems Inc was entitled to summary judgment in respect of the parallel import of computer equipment by M-Tech Data Ltd


Improved search interface is a computer programme “as such”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • February 28 2008

In the recent case of Autonomy Corporation Limited v The Comptroller General of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs 2008 EWHC 146 (Pat), the Comptroller successfully appealed against an application for a UK patent on the ground that it consisted of a computer program “as such” and a presentation of information


Reissued i4i panel opinion clarifies willfulness analysis
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 28 2010

In a re-issuance of an earlier opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the willfulness analysis of its earlier decision that affirmed a jury’s $200 million award against Microsoft in a patent infringement action


Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • April 30 2010

On 21 February 2010, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), issued an Opinion on the current negotiations by the European Union of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), in which he calls on the European Union, and in particular the European Commission, "to strike a right balance between demands for the protection of intellectual property rights IPRs and the privacy and data protection rights of individuals" when negotiating ACTA


Tenth Circuit overturns grant of summary judgment despite defendant’s “powerful arguments” regarding interpretation of copyright ownership license
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 28 2009

Analyzing an allegedly ambiguous contract in a complicated, multimillion-dollar dispute over source code copyrights for the Unix operating system, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reiterated that “powerful arguments” are insufficient to warrant summary judgment and remanded for a trial


Corporate restructuring results in loss of software license
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 30 2009

In a situation in which a corporate restructuring resulted in an original software licensee being restructured out of existence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the ultimate holder of the software license after restructuring was not a permitted transferee and thus was liable for copyright infringement


No pre-verdict JMOL motions, no review of jury damage award
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a permanent injunction and an award of $240 million in damages against Microsoft for patent infringement in connection with certain versions of MS Word software that offer XML editing functionality


Adding material from an ancestor application to an issued patent during reexamination not allowed
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2009

Addressing the issue of permissibility of adding a subject matter from its ancestor application back into the issued patent during its reexamination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the finding of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) that it is impermissible to do so without showing that the subject matter was inherently present in the continuation-in-part application for the patent