34,884 results found

On July 21, 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Babcock & Wilcox Company et. al. v. American Nuclear Insurers et. al, No. 2 WAP 2014.

On June 15, 2015, the Federal Reserve Board issued a public statement regarding AIG and the recently issued United States Court of Federal Claims decision in Starr International Company, Inc. v. The United States.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, which argued that it had properly cancelled a fire policy...

Intellectual Property partner Gregory B. Sephton, special counsel Christine Willgoos and associate John P. Dillon's article "BPCIA Questions Continue To Arise For Biosimilar Applicants"...

In XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., Nos. 16-2054, 16-2136, a majority of the CAFC panel applied collateral estoppel sua sponte to an appeal from a district court action following its affirmance...

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the CAFC, sitting en banc (excl. Chen, C.J.) ...

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., Civil Action No. 10-1067-LPS (D.Del., March 10, 2016), the Court denied defendant's motion for judgment...

After evaluating and weighing the three factors the Court typically considers when deciding a motion to stay, the Court found that those factors did not favor granting the motion to stay.

The '110 Patent is also the patent-in-suit in the infringement actions pending against PriceLine.com (Civil Action No. 13-1541-LPS) and Travelocity.com (Civil Action No. 13-1544-LPS) as well.

The International Trade Commission (ITC) is a critical forum for those seeking to protect their intellectual property rights, particularly patent claims, against unfair imports.

In Nidec Motor Co. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., No. 16-2321, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that claims directed to a low-noise HVAC system were invalid as obvious

Derivation proceedings, much like its predecessor interference proceedings, apply when there are allegations that an individual, having learned of an invention from another, files a patent application.

In Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019)

The Federal Circuit examined whether the term "about" in a patent claim specifying a pH range of "about 7.6 to 10" was sufficiently definite to inform skilled artisans of the invention's scope with reasonable certainty.

In Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, No. 20-1046 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2022), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an International Trade Commission decision finding that...

The Apple-Samsung litigation provides valuable lessons for those expecting growth, and IP disputes, in the renewable energy space.

Man Machine appealed from an ex parte reexamination decision wherein the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld an examiner's rejection of seven claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds.