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 192

No Approval for Generic Product for Treatment of Rosacea
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 28 2016

Addressing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and obviousness issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the


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


Target date set in Inv. no. 337-TA-808
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 5 2011

ALJ E. James Gildea issued an Initial Determination on October 4, 2011 that, among other things, sets the target date for Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, 337-TA-808


New complaint filed over the importation of integrated solar power systems
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 5 2011

On October 4, 2011, a complaint was filed on behalf of two Westinghouse subsidiaries, Westinghouse Solar Inc. and Andalay Solar Inc., against proposed respondents Zep Solar Inc., Canadian Solar Inc., and Canadian Solar (USA) Inc


Federal Circuit affirms structural obviousness analysis
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 30 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in addressing the standard for establishing when a chemical compound is obvious based on prior art compounds, reiterated its two-part framework earlier established in Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd. (see IP Update, Vol. 10, No. 7


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


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


Use of “antithesis” of claim element does not bar application of doctrine of equivalents
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 30 2015

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the use of a claimed step, characterized as the “antithesis” of


ID on infringement and public interest in remand of interdigital investigation
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 28 2015

In a long-running investigation brought by InterDigital concerning Nokia mobile phones, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on the remand hearing from