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 284

Thank Godfrey for Small Favors: Federal Circuit Upholds Continuation Filing Deadline in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp.
  • Dilworth IP
  • USA
  • August 2 2016

On June 21, the Federal Circuit held that a patent application filed as a continuation of an earlier application may be filed on the same day that


Standing issue back in play in Myriad Genetics
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2012

While the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the parties in Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Myriad Genetics) to address the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Prometheus Laboratories ruling on the validity of the composition and method patents at issue in Myriad Genetics, the defendant, which holds an exclusive license to the patents, has once again raised whether the challengers have standing


New trial on damages ordered where expert's reliance on 25 rule was inappropriate in light of uniloc and availability of non-infringing substitute was not considered
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • December 5 2011

Spine Solutions, Inc. ("SSI") sued Medtronic Sofamor Danek ("Medtronic") for patent infringement alleging that three of Medtronic's artificial disc implants infringed an SSI patent


Supreme Court re-affirms that inventors own their inventions
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • June 13 2011

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. concluding that the inventor of a patent owns the patented invention even if federal funding is used to fund the research under the Bayh-Dole Act


Agree to assign vs. hereby assign: in Stanford v. Roche, the wording of assignment agreements determines patent ownership
  • Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC
  • USA
  • June 9 2011

In yet another decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to impact intellectual property rights, the Court now maintains a centuries-old law that the rights to an invention belong to the inventor


I’m from the government and I’m here to help you
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling in a 292 false marking suit, finding that the plaintiff had standing to sue and that the federal government had a right of intervention


Any person can sue for false patent marking
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • September 10 2010

The false patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. 292, permits any person to bring a qui tam suit on behalf of the United States against a patent holder and to share in the recovery of any penalties assessed on the falsely-marked articles


Federal Circuit clarifies that standing in false patent marking case extends to any person as the government's assignee
  • Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
  • USA
  • September 2 2010

In an order issued August 31, 2010, the Federal Circuit has reinforced that any person has standing to bring a claim for false patent marking under 35 U.S.C. 292


Federal Circuit closes off possible standing defense to false marking defendants
  • Banner & Witcoff Ltd
  • USA
  • September 1 2010

On August 31, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down its third major decision in the last nine months on the issue of false marking in Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc


Qui tam standing and government standing to intervene found in false marking suit: Stauffer v. Brooks
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • August 31 2010

In an opinion by Judge Lourie, joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judge Moore, regarding Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., No. 09-1428 et al. (Fed. Cir. August 31, 2010) (Stauffer), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held that qui tam plaintiff Raymond Stauffer had standing to sue under Section 292 and that the U.S. government could intervene in the standing controversy at the pleadings phase