Intellectual Property

Intellectual property disputes take place on a daily basis in a variety of venues. From an employee’s right to a patent of company-developed products to patent wars between international companies for illegal use of a product/logo, the National Law Review is a great resource for updates on all things IP. The site covers litigation at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the  Patent Trial and Board Appeals (PTAB), as well as cases in front of the International Trade Commission (ITC) for international patent disputes. The National Law Review covers cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), or appeals which are now sitting in front of the patent-board on Inter partes review (IPR). Additionally, the National Law Review covers cases and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Copyrights, patent infringement claims, trade secrets, false advertising claims, unfair competition, and intellectual property laws which govern patent-litigation, are all areas which the National Law Review covers, in detail for readers. Patent disputes don’t only occur in the United States. When international countries including the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, India, and the European Union get involved, international laws are also taken into consideration by the PTO. Additionally, information on how to obtain patent protection internationally is also available on the National Law Review.

Intellectual property news on the National Law Review spans from topics including biosimilars, domain name registration, generic top-level domains (gTLDs), drug patents, non-compete agreements, trade secrets, and other industry-related battles which ensue, are covered on the site. Visitors can read about the latest legislation, laws, and news, as it relates to patents and intellectual property in general. Further, visitors to the National Law Review are going to find the latest stories and litigation as it unfolds in front of patent courts across the land. From email and data retention policies, patent disputes over medical devices, cloud computing and artificial intelligence the National Law Review has the details and expert intellectual property litigation legal analysis readers count on.

For hourly updates on the latest news about Intellectual Property Law, IP Litigation, Patent Legislation, and more, be sure to follow our IP Law Twitter feed, and sign up for complimentary e-news bulletins.

Custom text Title Organization
Jun
16
2011
.xxx Domain Names to Become Available from September 2011 McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
16
2011
Supreme Court Upholds “Clear and Convincing” Standard of Proof for Patent Invalidity While Suggesting Juries Be Instructed on the Weight of the Evidence Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Jun
15
2011
Domain Name Registrant Found to Lack Bad Faith in UDRP Proceeding Later Loses Against ACPA Claim McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
15
2011
Supreme Court Upholds Inventor's Ownership of Patent Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Jun
15
2011
Patent Law Unchanged by Microsoft Supreme Court Decision Vedder Price
Jun
14
2011
Supreme Court Upholds Clear and Convincing Standard for Invalidity but with a Twist Armstrong Teasdale
Jun
14
2011
Supreme Court Unanimously Maintains High Hurdle for Invalidity Defense Bracewell LLP
Jun
14
2011
Personal Jurisdiction Lacking Despite Twenty Internet Users from Forum State Signing Up for Defendant’s Website McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
13
2011
Best Mode Lacking Where Disclosure “Leads Away” From Commercial Embodiment McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
13
2011
Supreme Court: Evidence Of Invalidity Must Be “Clear And Convincing” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
12
2011
Common Sense Variation Is Unpatentable McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
12
2011
Patent Holder Takes a Shot at Nintendo over DSi Cameras Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Jun
12
2011
Joint (Direct) Infringement Still Requires Control … But Stay Tuned McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
11
2011
A Four-Step Guide for Securing Patent Portfolios after Stanford v. Roche Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
Jun
10
2011
Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole Act Does Not Eclipse Inventor's Rights Bracewell LLP
Jun
10
2011
Nonanalogous Art Lives! In Re Klein Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
10
2011
Agree to Assign vs. Hereby Assign: In Stanford v. Roche, the Wording of Assignment Agreements Determines Patent Ownership Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
9
2011
Supreme Court Leaves Standard for Patent Invalidity Unchanged Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Jun
9
2011
Supreme Court Attempts to Clarify Bayh-Dole Act Vedder Price
Jun
9
2011
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.: Supreme Court Observations Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
9
2011
Supreme Court decides Stanford v. Roche – Clarifies Scope of Bayh-Dole Act Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
7
2011
Even Under Bayh-Dole, Employee Inventor Has First Dibs McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
7
2011
Reexamination Practice: One Size Does Not Fit All Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
7
2011
Perils of Reissue - Recapture Doctrine Has Teeth! Bracewell LLP
Jun
6
2011
New Standards for Litigants in Patent Cases: Inequitable Conduct is No Longer a Boiler Plate Defense Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
Jun
6
2011
False Advertising Injunction Upheld; It’s All Good … And Good for You McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
5
2011
Pitfalls of Provisional Patent Applications Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Jun
5
2011
Coming to America: Converting a UK Technology License Agreement To A US Technology License Agreement Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Jun
4
2011
Bridal Shop Loses Trademark Rights for Naked Licensing - Eva's Bridal Ltd. McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
4
2011
Federal Circuit Attempts to Eradicate the Plague of Inequitable Conduct, Sets New Standards Vedder Price
Jun
3
2011
European Court of Justice Extends Injunction Granted in One Jurisdiction to Entirety of European Union McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
3
2011
Making Therasense of the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine Bracewell LLP
Jun
3
2011
Idea Submission Case Involving “Ghost Hunters” Television Series Not Preempted by Copyright Law McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
2
2011
Turning a Blind Eye to Critical Facts leads to Induced Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Jun
1
2011
Expanded Protection Against Employee Computer Data Theft Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
1
2011
The Hacker Who Avoided a False Marking Claim McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
1
2011
Federal Circuit Significantly Restricts the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct in Therasense v. Becton Dickenson Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
May
31
2011
U.S. Supreme Court Establishes State-of-Mind Requirement for Inducing Infringement Liability Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
May
30
2011
Therasense Makes Sense of Inequitable Conduct Defense Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
29
2011
Patent Rights and Attracting Investors Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
May
27
2011
Therasense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company—The Federal Circuit tightens the standards necessary to establish the inequitable conduct defense by requiring a “but-for” showing of materiality Hunton Andrews Kurth
May
27
2011
Can We Talk? Doing So Significantly Increases Early Allowance of Patent Applications Bracewell LLP
May
27
2011
Therasense Returns Common Sense to Law of Inequitable Conduct Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
26
2011
Federal Circuit Ruling Tightens Standard For Inequitable Conduct Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
May
26
2011
Patent Application Drafting for International Prosecution: Practice Tips Vedder Price
May
25
2011
Highlights on the Latest Patent Reform Bill Vedder Price
May
25
2011
Patent Owner Stay Motion Successful Based on Defendants’ Reexam Requests Filed on Eve of Markman Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
25
2011
IP Experience in the Due Diligence Process More Important than Ever Vedder Price
May
24
2011
Implementation of Track I of Enhanced Examination Timing Control Initiative by the USPTO Postponed Vedder Price
May
19
2011
Decision of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal – Sexual Crossing and Selection of Plants is Not Patentable Even When Using DNA Markers Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins