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 190

Motion for presumption of infringement denied in Gemcitabine investigation
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 5 2011

ALJ Rogers denied a Motion for Presumption of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. 295 filed by Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”) in Inv. No. 337-TA-766, Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing the Same


New complaint filed by VirnetX against Apple
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

On November 4, 2011 VirnetX, Inc. filed a complaint regarding Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. Apple Inc. is named as the only proposed respondent. VirnetX alleges that Apple, Inc. infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (the “’181 patent”) for a “Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network.”


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


Generics challenge to Crestor patent fails
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 31 2013

In a case involving multiple defendants seeking to sell generic versions of the drug rosuvastatin calcium, currently marketed as Crestor, the U


Wrongful injunction raises presumption of recovery of bond
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2011

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that wrongfully enjoined parties are entitled to a presumption in favor of recovery against an injunction bond for provable damages


Violation of ITC Consent Order Can Be Based on “Infringement” of Invalid Claims
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 23 2015

Reviewing the International Trade Commission’s (ITC or Commission) finding of a violation of a consent order, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of


Activities for sNDA and citizen’s petition protected by “safe harbor”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2015

In a case addressing the “safe harbor” provision of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district


Quantify versus quality determines domestic industry
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 28 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of a violation of 337


Obviousness-type double patenting requires a reason to modify with a reasonable expectation of success
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2012

Addressing the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its earlier rulings that obviousness must be judged by whether the differences in subject matter between the new claim and the earlier claim are patentably distinct


U.S. International Trade Commission addresses use of standard-essential patents in Section 337 investigations
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 8 2013

The U.S. International Trade Commission recently published the final public version of its June 4, 2013, decision, which states that there is nothing