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 Sort descending Organization
Aug
18
2011
Mutual Indemnification Clause Gives Rise to Attorneys’ Fees Regardless of Prevailing Party McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
17
2023
My Employees Are Using ChatGPT. What Now? Foley & Lardner LLP
May
24
2023
My Health, My Data! Washington State Enacts Broad Health Data Privacy Protection Law Mintz
Feb
10
2016
Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Amneal Pharm v. Yeda Research & Development: Motion to Submit Supplemental Information Was Granted For Public Documents But Denied For Confidential Documents IPR2015-00643, 644, 830 Faegre Drinker
Oct
8
2014
Myriad Faces Yet Another Patent Eligibility Battle In Return to the Federal Circuit ArentFox Schiff LLP
Aug
4
2011
Myriad Federal Circuit Decision Affirms Patentability of Claims to “Isolated” DNA but Methods Involving Only “Comparing” or “Analyzing” DNA Sequences Unpatentable and No Declaratory Judgment for Those Who Simply Disagree With Patent Vedder Price
Apr
13
2011
Myriad Oral Arguments – Section 101 vs. Chemistry 101? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
18
2013
Myriad Patent Case Argued Before The Supreme Court – Some Snippets Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
15
2011
Myriad Petition For Rehearing Denied Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
27
2015
Myriad Settles – Questions Remain re: Patent Litigation Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
12
2013
Myriad Uncertainties Re: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Apr
26
2016
Myriad vs. Mayo – Detection vs. Processing at the Federal Circuit Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
20
2014
Myriad's Breast Cancer Test Patents Not Patent Eligible Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
Jan
20
2015
Myriad’s Fight Continues: Federal Circuit Finds Composition and Method Claims Ineligible Covington & Burling LLP
Jun
4
2022
Mythical Games Scores NFL License for Blockchain Video Game Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Sep
21
2021
N.D. Ill. Finds that a Foreign Parent Corp. May be Sued Under BPCIA Without the U.S. Subsidiary that Signed and Filed aBLA Mintz
Feb
21
2024
N.J. District Court Denies Bid for TRO for Failure to Identify Trade Secrets, But Still Allows Case to Proceed Proskauer Rose LLP
May
25
2012
N.J. Moves Towards Legal Sports Betting This Fall, in Time for NFL Season Ifrah Law
Jan
27
2022
NAD Finds Emojis Communicate Clear Messages in Advertising Katten
Oct
8
2020
NAIA Grants Name, Image, Likeness Rights to Collegiate Student-Athletes Jackson Lewis P.C.
Sep
14
2015
Naked Consent: When Does Yes Mean No? Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Aug
1
2011
Naked Licensing Defense Barred Where Licensee Previously Failed to Contest Trademark Validity McDermott Will & Emery
Nov
10
2015
Naked Truth About Wine and Beer Brandmarking Dickinson Wright PLLC
Aug
27
2019
Nalproprion v. Actavis: WDR met by Substantially Equivalent Claim Elements(?) Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
23
2024
Name, Image & Likeness: New Class Action Could Determine Whether NIL Activities Are Subject To US Federal Law Prohibiting Sex Discrimination In Education Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Jul
11
2022
Name, Image, and Likeness in US College Athletics: One Year Later Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Jul
16
2021
Name, Image, and Likeness Reform Is Here: The Business Basics Roetzel & Andress LPA
Sep
24
2022
Names and Brand Names Norris McLaughlin P.A.
Aug
4
2015
Nanoco Tech. v. Massachusetts Institute of Tech: Institution Granted in Part Where Exclusive Licensee Was Not a Real Party-in-Interest IPR2015-00532 Faegre Drinker
Feb
4
2020
Nanotechnology Entrepreneurship Network Webinar on Insights from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Will Be Held February 5 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
Sep
7
2017
NANTKWEST, INC. v. MATAL: Expenses Incurred by Government Attorneys during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 Appeal Can Be Recovered by the USPTO Hunton Andrews Kurth
Aug
30
2019
Narrow Claim Construction is Out of Sync with Broad Intrinsic Evidence McDermott Will & Emery
Mar
27
2014
Narrower of Possible Claim Constructions Prevails - Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Zydus Pharma USA, Inc. McDermott Will & Emery
Sep
12
2011
Narrowing Claim Amendment Blocks Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents, Again McDermott Will & Emery
May
1
2014
Narrowing Colour Claims Re: Christian Louboutin Trademark Katten
 

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