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 108

An accused device is “modified” by the installation of software
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 5 2014

Revisiting the wording of claims that recite a combination of hardware and software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a


On a plain and ordinary meaning of “embedded” code in a web page
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2014

Addressing a district court’s construction of the claim term “embedded” code as code “written into the HTML code of the web page” and the related


Supreme Court on evaluation of claims to computer-implemented inventions under 35 U.S.C. 101
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2014

The Supreme Court of the United States has now confirmed that while computer-implemented inventions, such as computer software, remain eligible


Stays of litigation warranted even when the CBM review does not address all asserted claims or all invalidity defenses
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 30 2014

Addressing the denial of a stay pending the covered business method (CBM) review of some, but not all, asserted claims in a district court action, the


Standing requires articulation of jurisdictional facts
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 30 2014

Addressing a petition for a covered business method (CBM) patent review, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or


Yet another court weighs in on FRAND rates (this time for Wi-Fi)
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2013

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after a bench trial limited to the issue of determining a FRAND rate for licensing a


What constitutes a covered business method patent?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2015

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided guidance as to what constitutes a patent subject to


Invalidating a patent on a motion to dismiss is proper
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not find the patentee’s infringement suit to be objectively baseless, notwithstanding that the


Claim differentiation fails to save patentees from their own words
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 26 2014

In each of two essentially contemporaneous decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the patentee's contentions on appeal


ALJ Bullock denies summary determination motions in Inv. No. 337-TA-704
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 26 2010

ALJ Bullock issued two orders denying summary determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communication Devices and Components Thereof