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 139

Limits on the use of the disclosure-dedication rule under doctrine of equivalents
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether the disclosure of subject matter in a document incorporated by reference amounts to a dedication of that subject matter to the public under the Johnson & Johnston disclosure-dedication rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that the host patent must first sufficiently inform one of ordinary skill that the incorporated document contains subject matter that is an alternative to a claim limitation before the dedication rule can be used to limit equivalents


The hacker who avoided a false marking claim
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 28 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of a false marking complaint, finding that the complaint failed to properly allege an “unpatented article” under 35 U.S.C. 292


Infringement of a computerized method must demonstrate use of a computer
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 7 2010

In a decision that issued shortly before the Supreme Court decision in In re Bilski, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to “computerized method” was not infringed where at least one step was not performed by a computer


Failure to object to improper use of the entire market value rule will constitute waiver
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an infringement verdict for the method claims in a “locked code” products case, but upheld both the infringement verdict on the apparatus claims and the manner in which the Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty factors were applied to damages


Common sense variation is unpatentable
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 28 2011

Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a common-sense variation of known technology is unpatentable


Appeal against exclusion from patentability of software to protect minors online allowed
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • January 12 2012

In relation to the application by Protecting Kids the World Over (PKTWO) 2011 EWHC 2720 (Pat), the High Court of England and Wales has allowed an appeal against a decision of a Hearing Officer that found that an alarm notification system for monitoring inappropriate electronic communications fell within the computer program exclusion


Federal Circuit affirms jury verdict of invalidity based on on-sale bar and public use
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 28 2012

Affirming the district court’s judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cleared Facebook of allegations of patent infringement, finding that that the patent in suit was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because the patentee’s product which embodied the patented subject matter was on sale and in public use more than one year before the filing of the patent


ALJ Rogers issues final initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-723
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 5 2011

ALJ Rogers issued his Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof


Amended procedural schedule set in Inv. No. 337-TA-750
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 9 2011

On August 9, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an order granting a joint motion to amend the procedural schedule to amend certain dates to permit additional time for certain pre-hearing events and to facilitate the efficient completion of prehearing submissions


Procedural schedule set in Inv. No. 337-TA-784
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 16 2011

On September 15, 2011, ALJ Theodore R. Essex set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-784, Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same, based on the parties joint proposed procedural schedule