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 306

Federal Circuit Reverses Finding Of No Violation of Section 337 And Remands In One-E-Way Appeal (2016-2105)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • June 21 2017

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC (2016-2105). This was


Failure to object to “new” arguments may waive APA procedural objections
  • Klarquist Sparkman LLP
  • USA
  • May 9 2017

In Securus Techs. v. Global TelLink Corp., the Federal Circuit rejected the propriety of complaining about issues raised for the first time in a


Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed
  • Mintz
  • USA
  • April 25 2017

Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus


Federal Circuit Reminds PTAB to Explain its Reasoning
  • Mintz
  • USA
  • March 1 2017

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board)


Patent Damages Year In Review
  • Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2017

The past year saw significant changes in the world of patent damages, as the US Supreme Court decided two cases addressing patent damages issues in


One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Enfish: Unraveling the Maze of Parallel CourtPTAB Proceedings
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2017

The saga of Enfish v. Microsoft continues. The Enfish litigation provides a textbook example of the multi-pronged defense now common with the advent


To Antedate, Must an Inventor Prove “Continuous Reasonable Diligence” or “Reasonably Continuous Diligence”?
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • November 30 2016

A split panel of the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB applied a standard that was too exacting when it required an inventor to prove the


Federal Circuit Corrects the Board’s “Too Exacting” Diligence Standard
  • Mintz
  • USA
  • November 21 2016

On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by


PTAB Upholds Claims Under Narrowed BRI Construction on Remand
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • November 3 2016

The PTAB’s recent decision on remand in Corning Optical Comm. V. PPC Broadband (IPR2013-00342, Paper No. 57), and the related decision on appeal (815


Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel
  • Knobbe Martens
  • USA
  • November 1 2016

In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even