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 20

A win for innovation: Supreme Court’s denial of review of Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co. preserves U.S. rights of licensees of Chapter 15 foreign debtors
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • October 20 2014

On Monday, October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., thereby preserving


Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2013

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act. Highlights of the changes to U.S. Patent Law include the


Supreme Court accepts case regarding the reach of Monsanto’s intellectual property rights to second generation seeds
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • January 7 2013

On Friday, October 5, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision in Monsanto Co. v


District court says USPTO miscalculates patent term adjustment
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • November 12 2012

The law provides patent applicants an adjustment in patent term to compensate for USPTO delays during prosecution.


Supreme Court rejects personalized medicine patent claims as unpatentable laws of nature
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • March 26 2012

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held two patents invalid for lack of patentable subject matter.


IP subject matter conflicts of interest: who is looking out for you?
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2010

As patent attorneys develop knowledge in particular technology areas, they often seek to represent multiple clients in that technology area.


Supreme Court finds hedging process ineligible for patent
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • August 1 2010

In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a hedging process developed for buyers and sellers of commodities in the energy market wasn't eligible for a patent.


Jeanne P. Darcey
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP

Alison E. Lothes
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP