Finnegan

901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413, United States

  • 202.408.4000
  • 202.408.4400

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - February 2012

In this issue: Claim Construction Not Based on the Intrinsic Record and Pursuit of Baseless Infringement Action Result in a $5 Million Fee Award; Market Need Properly Linked to the Invention Can Be Probative of Long-Felt…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - January 2012

In this issue: Proving Prior Invention Does Not Require That the Prior Inventor Appreciated the Subject Matter Using the Same Words of the Claim; Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum and Defendant’s State of Incorporation Not Dispositive…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Incontestable - December 2011/January 2012

In this issue: Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 2011 WL 6181452 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011); L.F.P. IP, Inc. v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 2011 WL 5024356 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2011); Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp., 2011 WL…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Communications & Media Law, Electronic Discovery, Intellectual Property

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - December 2011

In this issue: Spotlight Info; Looking Ahead; Computer-Implemented Algorithm Recited in Prose Discloses Adequate Structure for Means-Plus-Function Element; The Objective Prong of the Willful Infringement Inquiry May Require…more
| Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - November 2011

In this issue: Reexamination Estoppel Takes Effect Only After All Appeal Rights Are Exhausted; Expenditures on Patent Litigation Do Not Automatically Constitute Evidence of a Substantial Investment in the Exploitation of a…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Commercial Law & Contracts, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property

Full Disclosure: Patent Prosecution Update - November 2011

In this issue: Navigating the New U.S. Patent Filing System; UK High Court Revisits Excluded Subject Matter with Some Promise for Applicants; Using Supplemental Examination Effectively to Strengthen the Value of Your Patents;…more
| Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Checking the STAATS: How Long is Too Long to Give Adequate Public Notice in Broadening Reissue Patent Applicants

A classic property rights question looms large in the field of patent law: where do the rights of inventors end and the rights of the public begin? The right of inventors to modify the scope of their claimed inventions, even…more
| Intellectual Property

Incontestable - October 2011

In this issue: Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com LLC, 2011 WL 4449686 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2011); GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 2011 WL 4394353 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011); Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 2011 WL 4005350 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011);…more
| Civil Remedies, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade, Science, Computers, & Technology

Post-Grant Review v. EPO Oppositions

The Patent Reform Act of 2011 (AIA) is the greatest overhaul of the U.S. patent system since 1952. One striking change is the introduction of post-grant review. Post-grant review will impact the ability of a third party to…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Useful in the United States, But Not in Canada: Divergent Applications of the Statutory Utility Requirements

Recent decisions by appellate courts in Canada and the United States highlight the sharp conflict in judicial application of the statutory "utility" requirements under the patent laws of those countries. The decisions involved a…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Conflict of Laws, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Federal Court Sanctions a Patent-Holding Company and Its Attorneys for Bad- Faith Litigation

Sometimes accused patent infringers face a painful dilemma: either pursue a costly litigation against a baseless complaint or pay a nuisance settlement. A recent case in the Federal Circuit may help curtail these baseless…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - October 2011

In this issue: Use of “A” in Claim Language Does Not Always Mean “One or More Than One” in Open Ended Claims; Federal Circuit Reversed Improperly Narrowing Claim Construction; Advertising as Currency Falls Under the Scope of §…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Commercial Law & Contracts, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property

The Common-Interest Privilege May Prevent Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege in Documents Shared Between Litigants and IP-Licensing Consultants

When litigating a case, either as a plaintiff or a defendant, a party may have co-parties aligned with them in the litigation, that is, fellow plaintiffs or defendants litigating against a common opponent or opponents. Often,…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

The Changing Law of Multiparty Patent Infringement in the U.S. and How It Differs from Europe: Part One

In both the United States and Europe, most practitioners and commentators tend to focus on patent litigation involving single-party infringement. In those cases, the primary question is whether the accused took some action that…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

The Net of U.S. IP Infringement Actions

Chinese companies exporting products into the United States or doing business with U.S. companies fear being sued in U.S. courts for intellectual property infringement. Consider the following scenario: A Chinese company makes…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade
Showing 1-15 of 138 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10
Areas of Practice
  • Intellectual Property
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • California
  • Georgia
  • Massachusetts
  • Virginia
Other Countries
  • Belgium
  • China
  • Japan
  • Taiwan
Number of Attorneys

100+ Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.