Mondaq USA: Intellectual Property
Morrison & Foerster LLP
What is a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) royalty for a few patents essential to practicing a technical standard like WiFi and how should the jury in such a case be instructed on damages?
Ropes & Gray LLP
On December 17, 2014, a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that may significantly narrow the scope of patent eligible subject matter with respect to method claims in the biotechnology field. - See more at: http://www.ropesgray.com/news-and-insights/Insights/2014/December/Federal-Circuit-Applies-Alice-to-Biotechnology-in-Striking-Down-Myriad-Method-of-Screening-Claims.aspx#sthash.s5mijKsv.dpuf
Womble Carlyle
Even in the face of copycats, innovation remains the lifeblood of the home furnishings industry, and innovators have legal remedies to protect their designs.
Foley & Lardner
In a case styled as In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation (also known as Myriad v. Ambry), the Federal Circuit held four of Myriad’s "primer" claims and two of Myriad’s detection method claims invalid for lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101.
Foley & Lardner
Post grant inter partes review proceedings have lowered the hurdle to invalidate U.S. patents.
Stites & Harbison PLLC
You can see the location of the meniscus in the diagram of a human knee joint to the left.
Womble Carlyle
Suppose your client's patent application is rejected as allegedly obvious under 35 USC §103, and the Examiner cites one or more references and sets forth an "obvious to try" rationale in an Office action
Stites & Harbison PLLC
Here at the Trademarkology blog, we tend to focus on the lighter side of trademark law. We leave the boring stuff to the other trademark blogs (just kidding … sort of).
Thompson Coburn LLP
Patent trolls are usually thought of as bad for innovation, bad for business, and bad in general. The common narrative is that patent trolls should be wiped out and restricted in whatever way possible.
Foley Hoag LLP
We are happy to announce that the Trademark and Copyright Law blog has earned a spot on the ABA Journal’s "Blawg 100" for 2014
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued revised guidance to its examiners relating to determination of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Scientific or technical journal writers like scientists, doctors, engineers, and academics are usually introduced early to the importance and strategy of writing and publishing papers.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
A December 5, 2014 precedential decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent on webpage-display technology is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Fox Rothschild LLP
A damages expert can’t just pull numbers out of thin air.
Dentons (US)
In September, the US Patent and Trademark Office released a report to Congress describing the progress (and underutilization) of virtual patent marking in the three years since it first became available under the America Invents Act.
WilmerHale
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued updated guidance laying out the USPTO’s interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014).
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
On December 16, 2014, the USPTO published long-awaited guidelines intended to help examiners determine the patent eligibility of a wide range of inventions from isolated genetic materials to computer-implemented methods.
Foley & Lardner
On December 15th, 2014, the USPTO released its much anticipated revised subject matter eligibility examination guidance.
Foley & Lardner
You have just learned that a senior member of the company research and development team has resigned. The employee had access to important confidential information.
Womble Carlyle
On December 16, 2014, Lived In Images, Inc. (d/b/a Hometica) sued Boyd Lighting Fixture Company for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division) (Case No. 3:14-cv-05500).
Latest Video
Most Popular Recent Articles
Proskauer Rose LLP
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted the certiorari petition of Lexmark International Inc.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
The US Supreme Court rejected three conflicting tests for standing for false advertising claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, creating a new test.
Shelston IP
The article explains the issues, and the commonly held view of how to calculate straightforward US patent expiry dates.
Field Fisher Waterhouse
The dispute between Google and Oracle, over whether Java application programming interfaces (APIs) can be copyrighted, continues.
McDermott Will & Emery
Key points about the America Invents Act that inventors need to know include: how to navigate the first-to-file system, a new definition of prior art.
Epstein Becker & Green
There is certainly no question that an employee owes undivided loyalty to his or her employer while employed.
Troutman Sanders LLP
It is becoming clear that the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) marks a sea change in the patentability of computer software.
Fox Rothschild LLP
Since the June 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, at least 16 district court decisions, at least three Federal Circuit decisions, and a number of Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) decisions have overturned software and business method patents under the new patent-eligibility standard of Alice.
Orrick
Earlier this year, in Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court set out guidelines for determining whether patents claiming software and hardware features are statutorily eligible for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Herrick, Feinstein LLP
On November 12, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Patrick Cariou’s petition for a writ of certiorari, effectively ending his effort to undo the Second Circuit’s controversial decision, which largely exonerated from copyright liability artist Richard Prince’s Canal Zone works that incorporated Cariou’s copyrighted photographs of native Rastafarians.
Article Search Using Filters
Related Topics
Popular Authors
Popular Contributors
Tools
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
Partners