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
Dec
20
2014
Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, Decision on Institution IPR2014-00689 Faegre Drinker
Dec
20
2014
Myriad's Breast Cancer Test Patents Not Patent Eligible Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
Dec
19
2014
Federal Circuit Upholds e-Commerce Patent as Patent Eligible Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
Dec
19
2014
"TAKETEN" and "TAKE 10!" Trademarks Not Confusingly Similar Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
Dec
19
2014
Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, Denying Institution IPR2014-00678 Faegre Drinker
Dec
19
2014
Trademark Licensees May Be Protected in a Licensor’s Bankruptcy Even After a “Free and Clear” Sale Mintz
Dec
19
2014
Playtex Products, LLC, Eveready Battery Company, Inc., and Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., Denying Institution IPR2014-01130 Faegre Drinker
Dec
19
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – December 19, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
19
2014
Cooler Heads Prevail in New Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
19
2014
Design Patent Case Digest: Young v. Stone Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
19
2014
Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, Granting Leave to File Motion to Strike Deposition Testimony CBM2014-00102, 106, 108, 112 Faegre Drinker
Dec
19
2014
Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC, Denying Second Request for Rehearing IPR2014-00319 Faegre Drinker
Dec
18
2014
2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Under Myriad and Nature-Based Products Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Dec
18
2014
2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Provide Limited Direction for Software Implemented Inventions Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Dec
18
2014
Revised Guidelines for Patentable Subject Matter Eligibility Vedder Price
Dec
18
2014
Mayo Meet Alice Meet Myriad – Fed. Cir. Appreciates “Abstract Art” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
18
2014
Challenging “Obvious to Try” during Patent Prosecution Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Dec
18
2014
Woodward/White, Inc. v. Thomas Reuters (Legal) Inc., Denying Institution IPR2014-00854 Faegre Drinker
Dec
18
2014
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and Immunogen, Inc.: IPR2014-00842, Denying Institution IPR2014-00842 Faegre Drinker
Dec
17
2014
The USPTO’s New Guidance Simplifies Prosecution by Clarifying Subject-Matter Eligibility of Patents Armstrong Teasdale
Dec
17
2014
Turning Your Research Into Something More: Patents Versus Papers Mintz
Dec
17
2014
Post Holiday Trademark Sale!!!!!!! Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.
Dec
17
2014
Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Co.: IPR2014-00506, Denying Rehearing of Institution Denial IPR2014-00506 Faegre Drinker
Dec
17
2014
A New Domain Name Dispute Alternative: The Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
Dec
17
2014
Wolf Greenfield’s Awesome Intellectual Property Law Firm Holiday Card Fishman Marketing, Inc.
Dec
17
2014
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC: Denying Leave to File a Motion for Additional Discovery IPR2014-01357, 1362 Faegre Drinker
Dec
16
2014
USPTO Has a Shadow Program for Subjecting Patent Applications to Heightened Scrutiny, and It Should Concern You (But Not Too Much) Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Dec
16
2014
USPTO Issues New Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Interim Guidelines – Nature-Based Product Guidance Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
16
2014
Sandoz and Celltrion Decline the Invitation to Dance: Biosimilars Challenge the Applicability of the BPCIA’s Exchange Provisions Before Bringing Suit Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Dec
16
2014
Revised 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Released by PTO Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
16
2014
Design Patent Case Digest: Reddy v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
16
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – December 16, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
16
2014
USPTO Issues New Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Interim Guidelines – Abstract Idea Guidance Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
15
2014
Toyota Motor Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC: Denying Motion for Joinder IPR 2013-00419 Faegre Drinker
Dec
15
2014
USPTO Announces New Guidance on Post-Alice Subject Matter Eligibility Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Dec
15
2014
Architect’s Markings on Drawings Did Not Trump Terms of Construction Contract Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Dec
15
2014
For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents Mintz
Dec
15
2014
Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC, IPR2014-00312: Order Regarding Deposition IPR2014-00312 Faegre Drinker
Dec
15
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – December 15, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
15
2014
FTC Commissioner Brill Urges Congress to Act on Patent Trolls McDermott Will & Emery
Dec
15
2014
Non-Competition Covenants: Seller Considerations and Approaches Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Dec
15
2014
Toyota Motor Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-00416: Final Written Decision IPR2013-00416 Faegre Drinker
Dec
13
2014
Cloud-Based Export Compliance: Minefield for the Unwary Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.
Dec
13
2014
Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC: Final Written Decision IPR2013-00415 Faegre Drinker
Dec
13
2014
Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC: Denying Motion to Submit Supplemental Information IPR2014-00524 Faegre Drinker
Dec
12
2014
Supreme Court to Review Post-Expiration Date Royalties in Kimble v. Marvell Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
12
2014
Federal Circuit Finally Meets a Software Patent It Can Love: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, et al. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
12
2014
Cambridge University Press v. Patton: Who Really Won? re: Fair Use Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
Dec
12
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – December 12, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Dec
12
2014
Will Congress Enact a Federal Trade Secrets Act in 2015? Barnes & Thornburg LLP
 

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