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 2,801

Federal Circuit Narrows Ability of Defendants to Request Inter Partes Review After Service of Complaint in Unusual En Banc Footnote
  • Jenner & Block LLP
  • USA
  • September 10 2018

In Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., _ F.3d _, 2018 WL 3893119 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018), the en banc Federal Circuit recently held that the


Voluntary Dismissal Cannot Un-ring the Bell of 315(b)’s Time Bar
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • September 6 2018

In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. the en banc Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether a petition was time barred under


August 2018 Bid Protest Roundup
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • September 5 2018

This month, we bring you three bid protests from three fora. The first is not a decision at all, but an interesting dissenting opinion from two judges


Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • August 30 2018

In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal


The Federal Circuit Rules that “expenses” in patent statute does not mean attorneys fees; creates circuit split
  • Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL
  • USA
  • August 22 2018

The United State Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has aggressively litigated its position that anyone who challenges the PTO’s denial of a patent


CAFC Holds USPTO Cannot Recover Attorneys’ Fees Under 35 USC 145 in Nantkwest v. Iancu
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 15 2018

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the CAFC, sitting en banc (excl. Chen, C.J.), affirmed the district court’s


PTAB Issues Fourth Installment Of Its Motion To Amend Study
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • August 14 2018

On Monday, the PTAB issued its fourth installment of its ongoing motion to amend study, providing details on motions to amend filed and decided


Your presence is required: employee unable to travel to job site was not “qualified” within the meaning of the ADA
  • Jackson Lewis PC
  • USA
  • August 12 2018

In recent years, particularly with technology making it easier for employees to work remotely, courts have struggled to determine whether onsite


Expenses Under 35 U.S.C. 145 Does Not Include Attorneys’ Fees
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2018

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc (excl. Chen, C.J.), affirmed the district


En Banc Federal Circuit 145 Appellants Generally Not Liable for PTO Attorneys' Fees
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 2 2018

The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision and held that 35 USC 145 does not require applicants appealing to