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 187

Federal Circuit upholds ITC interpretation of 337 to cover induced infringement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

In a 6-4 ruling, a sharply divided en banc Federal Circuit overturned the original panel decision and deferred to the International Trade


Federal Circuit upholds ITC interpretation of 337 to cover induced infringement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 17 2015

Suprema, IncBy way of background, appellee Suprema manufactures hardware for scanning fingerprints. The scanners must be connected to a computer


Freescale Semiconductor files new complaint
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 5 2011

On November 30, 2011 Freescale Semiconductor filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission alleging a violation of Section 337 based on the importation, sale before importation, or sale after importation of U.S. Patent No. 5,467,455


Federal Circuit upholds ITC’s authority to enforce consent order covering third-party products
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 29 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the International Trade Commission (ITC, the


Federal Circuit ruling clears way for approval of generic version of Fentora
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 29 2013

Addressing allegations of patent infringement by a generic version of Fentora, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in


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


Claim construction order issues in Inv. 337-TA-796
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 6 2012

On March 6, 2012, ALJ Pender issued an order construing terms of asserted patents in Inv. 337-TA-796, Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof


New complaint filed by Interdigital Technology
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 28 2011

InterDigital Communications LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing Inc. filed a letter on July 26, 2011, requesting that the International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 covering Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof


Procedural schedule set in Inv. No. 337-TA-781
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 3 2011

On August 2, 2011, ALJ Bullock issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-781, Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same


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