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: 11-20 of 2,154

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


No Written Description, No Problem when Prosecution History Disclaimer is Applied
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2016

The Patent and Trial Appeal Board invoked the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer to construe the claims at issue narrowly for the inter


IP protection for mobile applications
  • RK Dewan & Co
  • India, USA
  • October 23 2013

The manner in which the information is shared with friends and colleagues has changed drastically since the outbreak of mobile technology. These days


Arbitration Without Law: Choice of Law in FRAND Disputes
  • Yigal Arnon & Co
  • Global, USA
  • November 15 2016

Recent arbitration between InterDigital and Huawei seems to demonstrate the purported advantages of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution


Google’s “FFF” patent plan: find it, fight it, and get it for free
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2015

Recently, Google has announced two new patent-related initiatives. The first being the overhaul of Google Patents, a search tool of existing patent


At two, Alice toddles along
  • Banner & Witcoff Ltd
  • USA
  • December 20 2016

Since the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Alice framework for


PTAB continues to evolve its covered business method patent jurisprudence
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 30 2015

In two related decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that patents directed to a personal computer interactive


비자명성(Non-Obviousness)에 의한 거절이유가 2 부족할 때
  • Sughrue Mion PLLC
  • South Korea, USA
  • October 4 2016

미국 특허법에서 35 U.S.C. 103은 특허를 받는 기술이 종래의 기술에 비추어 보았을 때 해당 분야의 통상의 기술을 가진 자에게 자명(obvious)하지 않을 것을 요구합니다. 이것은 세상에 이미 알려진 바와 비교했을 때 너무 “뻔한” 기술한테는 특허라는


The Federal Circuit Muddies The 101 Waters After BASCOM
  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2016

On September 30, 2016, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Symantec Corp., No. 15-1769, 15-1770, 15-1771, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Induced infringement: Federal Circuit joint AkamaiMckesson decision changes the law
  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • USA
  • June 5 2013

For years, courts have struggled with the concept of induced infringement. 35 U.S.C. 271(b) states that "whoever actively induces infringement