Legal 500
  • Rankings

    • Jurisdictions

    • Submissions

    • Future Lawyers

  • Firms & Lawyers

    • Service Providers

    • Barristers’ Sets

    • Networks

    • Interview with…

  • In-House

    • In-House Content

    • GC Powerlist

  • Knowledge Centre

    • Data Products

    • Legal Business

    • News & Developments

    • About us

      • Legal 500

      • FAQs

      • Marketing

      • Careers

      • Contact us

  • Comparative Guides

  • Events

  • Legal 500 TV

About us

  • Legal 500

  • FAQs

  • Marketing

  • Careers

  • Contact us

  • Deutschland DE

  • Paris FR

  • Rankings

    • Jurisdictions

    • Submissions

    • Future Lawyers

  • Firms & Lawyers

    • Service Providers

    • Barristers’ Sets

    • Networks

    • Interview with…

  • In-House

    • In-House Content

    • GC Powerlist

  • Knowledge Centre

    • Data Products

    • Legal Business

    • News & Developments

    • About us

      • Legal 500

      • FAQs

      • Marketing

      • Careers

      • Contact us

  • Comparative Guides

  • Events

  • Legal 500 TV

About us

  • Legal 500

  • FAQs

  • Marketing

  • Careers

  • Contact us

  • Deutschland DE

  • Paris FR

© 2026 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved

Registered company in England & Wales No. 02427356 VAT GB 321 5727 22

Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG

  • Data Protection policies
  • Cookies Policy
  • Supplier Code of Conduct
  • Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement
  • Contact Us
  • Article

    Courts Address How And When Product Hopping May Violate The Antirust Laws

    For many companies that compete in competitive markets, innovation and product improvement fuels competitive success: create a better product than your competitors, and over time, make it better.
    United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    A U.S. View On The UPC – Part 7: "Discovery"

    A common conception in the U.S. is that in European litigation, parties have no means to obtain evidence from the opponent or a third party and have to produce any evidence they want to rely on by themselves.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    The Federal Circuit's "Sharp Tongue" When It Comes To Bad Attorney Behavior

    "Sticks and stones may break my bones … but [sharp] words [from the Federal Circuit] will make me wish I never went to law school."
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    The Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Remedy Background And Implementation

    The recent passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA") creates a new, powerful remedy for trade secret holders in an era where misappropriation and theft of trade secrets is on the rise.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    Minerva v. Hologic: Assignor Estoppel Doctrine Retained, But Limited

    On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision retained the doctrine of assignor estoppel. However, the Court also held that "the Federal Circuit has applied the doctrine too expansively."
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    "Shall Be The Property" Is Insufficient To Automatically Assign Title To An Invention In A Contract

    On August 2, 2021, in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-1715, slip op., a Federal Circuit panel decision, with a dissent, upheld the district court's denial of Apple Inc.'s motion to dismiss Omni MedSci's patent infringement complaint for lack of standing.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    A U.S. View On The UPC – Part 8: Challenging The Validity Of A Patent

    On June 1, 2023, the new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors, and enforcement of European patents in (currently) 17 contract member states...
    GlobalIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    The Federal Circuit Narrows IPR Estoppel

    The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No. 2023-1367, 2025 WL 1318188 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025)...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
  • Article

    10 Years After Actavis, The Cases That Follow Tell A Story

    No pharmaceutical antitrust decision has had more impact than the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a decision which officially defined the term "reverse payment settlements,"...
    United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    The Heart Of The Matter: Venue In Light Of TC Heartland And In Re Cray

    Over the past few months the venue landscape for patent infringement litigations has changed drastically.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    A U.S. View On The UPC – Part 6: Appeals

    This part of the series discusses patent appeals to the UPC Court of Appeal from decisions and orders of the Court of First Instance, and compares them to patent appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
    United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    A Balancing Act: Fair Use And Creative Content

    This article analyzes a trend in the entertainment field where a party wishing to use another's intellectual property in a creative work will do so without first seeking a license or express consent...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    The Many Flavors Of Inter Partes Review Estoppel: A Review And Update

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") was years in the making. From the first patent reform bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith in June 2005 until the final House and Senate debates in September 2011, ...
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    The Applicability Of Intellectual Property To 3D Printing

    3D printing (or additive manufacturing) refers to technologies that produce three-dimensional objects by depositing layer upon layer of material during the manufacturing process.
    United StatesIntellectual Property
    Haug Partners
    Haug Partners
  • Article

    BPCIA Litigation: Key District Courts And Judges Shaping The Biologics Landscape

    By analyzing a decade's worth of BPCIA filings, we have gained insight into how venue strategy, repeat players, and specialized counsel are shaping the contours of this complex...
    United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
    WIT Legal
    WIT Legal

Showing 161–175 of 175 results

Previous
Legal Intelligence Newsletters