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 154

Federal Circuit Holds that the America Invents Act (AIA) Does Not Override Section 1447(d)’s Bar on Review of Orders Remanding Patent Cases to State Court
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • June 2 2017

When a law suit involving both state-law and patent-law causes of action is removed to federal court, allowing the federal court to simultaneously

LED Dispute Blazes Through Summary Judgment
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 22 2016

A recent decision from Judge Stearns sheds new light on a dispute between Lexington Luminance (“Lexington”) and Google over LED technology. The

LevelUp’s pursuit of attorney’s fees goes up to the Federal Circuit level
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 8 2015

In an interesting case before Judge Timothy S. Hillman in the District of Massachusetts, a dispute over whether attorney's fees should be granted is

Is there Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over patent inventorship disputes between state universities? Federal Circuit says no
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • August 26 2013

In University Of Utah V. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Federal Circuit was faced with deciding whether a patent inventorship dispute between two

Rubin v. The General Hospital Corporation,
  • Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
  • USA
  • July 3 2013

On March 28, 2013, the Federal Circuit upheld Judge Casper’s summary judgment decision, which dismissed Plaintiff’s request to correct inventorship

Abbott GmbH & Co., KG v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.,
  • Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
  • USA
  • July 3 2013

Following an eleven day trial in the Fall of 2012, Plaintiffs AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., AbbVie Biosearch Center, Inc., and AbbVie Biotechnology

Medical method claims for detecting Down syndrome is patentable under Bilski but rendered anticipated and obvious by the prior art
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • August 24 2011

In a patent dispute over a method for detecting fetal Down syndrome, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts invalidated the patent owner's patent because it was anticipated and obvious.

Exercises in U.S. statutory interpretation: Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company
  • McMillan LLP
  • USA
  • August 17 2010

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sued Eli Lilly in the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,410,516

Judgment vacated and remanded for claim construction consistent with plain meaning of “at least one”
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2008

In Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., No. 07-1363 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2008), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court’s claim construction was incorrect.