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 367

To lease or not to lease: why selling IP is often the better option
  • TechInsights
  • Canada
  • September 1 2009

While licensing can help a company to generate revenue, sometimes maintaining patents can be more trouble than they are worth.

Federal Court finds certain third party payments are not reportable to the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB)
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • July 30 2009

On July 10, 2009, the Federal Court of Canada released its decision in Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (AG), 2009 FC 719.

IRS reverses position on like-kind exchanges of certain intangibles -- opportunities for IP assets and business swaps
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • July 1 2009

The IRS recently reversed its long-standing position that intangibles such as trademarks, trade names, mastheads and customer-based intangibles could not qualify as like-kind property under section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code").

Ballet Tech Found., Inc. v. Joyce Theater Found., Inc
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • January 12 2009

Petitioner, the owner of the Joyce Theater, sought to cancel and oppose various JOYCE-formative registrations and an application for entertainment and charitable services owned by Respondent, the tenant and manager of the Joyce Theater.

Recent federal cases impact end user software license agreements
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • September 9 2008

Two recent federal district court decisions from the 9th Circuit may impact significantly the way in which software manufacturers distribute their copyrighted software.

When is a software license actually a sale? A new district court decision addresses the copyright first sale doctrine and software
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • September 5 2008

In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., the federal district court in Seattle added a new decision to the mix of software-related first sale doctrine cases.

High Court allows trade mark registrations for "shopping centre services" as well as broadening the registrability of commercial services
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • August 12 2008

Registration of trade marks for retail services has been allowed for some time now, but the recent High Court case Land Securities plc, Capital Shopping Centres and Hammerson v Registrar of Trade Marks extends that approach to the services provided by shopping centres and potentially broadens the extent of commercial services in general that may be registrable.

District court dismisses Third Wave’s antitrust counterclaims against Digene
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • April 16 2008

On January 11, 2008, Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to Digene Corp. (Digene) on all of the antitrust counterclaims that Third Wave Technologies (Third Wave) asserted in the litigation.

Actual test and Footstar approach govern DIP’s ability to assume patent and technology license
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • December 11 2007

Lawmakers’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s bankruptcy laws two years ago as part of the sweeping reforms implemented by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) failed to resolve a number of important business bankruptcy issues that have been and continue to be the subject of protracted debate among the bankruptcy and appellate courts.

Claim terms are presumed to have the same meaning in all claims absent evidence to the contrary
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2007

In PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., No. 06-1504 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of patent infringement, holding that the district court had erred in its claim construction, that no literal infringement occurred under the correct construction, and that prosecution history estoppel barred a finding of infringement under the DOE.