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
4
2014
Pattern of Functional Dots in Absorbent Pad Functional? It’s a Fact Issue: McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. McDermott Will & Emery
Nov
24
2020
Pause Before You Post – Copyright Issues in Social Media Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Aug
27
2021
Pay the (PTO) Piper: Correct Erroneously Underpaid Maintenance Fees to Avoid Inequitable Conduct Challenges Finnegan
Nov
18
2013
Pay-for-delay to Stay FTC’s (Federal Trade Commission) Top Priority McDermott Will & Emery
Apr
29
2016
Paying Royalties for Technology that Competitors Can Use for Free – AG Wathelet’s Genentech Opinion McDermott Will & Emery
Jan
2
2019
Paying “Large Entity” U.S. Patent Office Fees as an Insurance Policy Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Feb
10
2022
Payment Confirmation Establishes Filing Date in IPR Petitions Finnegan
May
1
2015
Payment Information Does Not Necessarily Make a CBM McDermott Will & Emery
Jan
17
2024
PayPal Inc. [2023] APO 54: PayPal Machine Stalls in The Face of Intangible Resistance K&L Gates
May
30
2014
PCT International, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation Summary of Conference Concerning Newly Discovered Prior Art IPR2013-00229 Faegre Drinker
Sep
19
2014
PCT International, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation: Final Written Decision IPR2013-00229 Faegre Drinker
Sep
7
2023
Penalty Flag Thrown: Former Florida Gators Sues to Void Controversial NIL Contract Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
May
12
2010
Penalty for Patent False Marking Set at Highest Sales Price Bracewell LLP
May
18
2023
Pending Appeal Does Not Divest Board of Statutory Authority to Institute IPRs McDermott Will & Emery
Jan
16
2014
Pending Patent Legislation—Round Two of Patent Reform McDermott Will & Emery
Mar
1
2013
Pending Petition for CBM (covered business method) Review Results in Litigation Stay Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Oct
19
2013
Penhall Company Files Complaint Against Competitor Southeast Grinding and Grooving Over "SGG" Trademark Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Nov
19
2015
Pennsylvania Supreme Court “Considers” Noncompetes: Mere Continued Employment Not Enough Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Sep
26
2022
Pennywise and Pound Foolish: Default Judgment Entered Against Trade Secret Defendants as a Sanction for Inadequate E-Discovery Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Nov
29
2023
People Don’t Come to See the Tattoo, They Come to See the Show Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Feb
27
2010
Pepsi Unsuccessful In Attempt To Derail Powerade ION4 Launch* Fitzpatrick
May
31
2021
Per CNIPA, 43% of Chinese Patent Firms Have Submitted ‘Irregular’ Patent Applications Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Aug
5
2014
Per Second Circuit; Full Text Searchable Database Is Fair Use: Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. HathiTrust, et al. McDermott Will & Emery
Nov
29
2018
Perchville Trademark: Fishy or Fanciful? McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
8
2015
Perfect Storm for Automotive Patent Disputes? Foley & Lardner LLP
Nov
16
2016
Perfect Surgical Techniques v. Olympus America: Swearing Behind Reference With Reasonably Continuous Diligence Foley & Lardner LLP
Oct
10
2015
Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. v. Uniloc: Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder Faegre Drinker
Jun
28
2012
Perfecting Security Interests in Intellectual Property… Not as Obvious as You Might Think Mintz
Nov
29
2023
Performance Improvement Technology In Elite Sports Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
May
24
2019
Performing a Service without Selling the Process Still Triggers the On-Sale Bar Mintz
Nov
26
2013
Perils of Flirting with Means-Plus-Function Limitation McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
7
2011
Perils of Reissue - Recapture Doctrine Has Teeth! Bracewell LLP
Sep
16
2019
Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Nov
25
2012
Perkinelmer v. Intema – Biomarker Claims Not Patent Eligible Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
10
2017
Permanent Injunction Not Overly Broad Where Plaintiff Would Not Enforce Injunction Against Noninfringing Uses Hunton Andrews Kurth
 

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