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
Jun
18
2020
No Fishing Allowed: Discovery of Litigation Funding Requires Articulation of Relevance Beyond Speculation Mintz
Apr
1
2014
No Foreseeability Bar to The Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents Re: Intellectual Property McDermott Will & Emery
Aug
9
2017
No Grey Areas in Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Trade Mark Criminal Offenses Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Mar
3
2022
No Harm, No Foul, and No Standing for Would-be SEP Implementer: 5th Circuit Changes Narrative on Patent “Hold Up” Mintz
Jun
30
2022
No Harm, No Foul: No False Advertisement Where Trade Association Failed to Show Injury McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
24
2020
No Hiding from § 317(b): Collateral Agreements Referenced in IPR Termination Agreement Must Be Disclosed McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
22
2024
No Home Away From Home: Federal Circuit Confirms PTO Domicile Requirements McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
7
2021
No Immunity: State Right of Publicity Law is § 230 “Law Pertaining to Intellectual Property” McDermott Will & Emery
Apr
5
2012
No Independent Analysis—No Preliminary Injunction McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
1
2015
No Induced Infringement Where Off-Label Use of a Drug Is Not “Inevitable” McDermott Will & Emery
Aug
30
2013
No Initial-Interest Confusion, No Lanham Act Violation Re: Infringement Litigation McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
24
2016
No Institution Based Solely on Unsupported Expert Testimony McDermott Will & Emery
May
3
2015
No Interlocutory Review of Pre-Institution Stay Motion’s in CBM Proceedings McDermott Will & Emery
Nov
30
2014
No Joinder Without Proof That Grounds Could Not Have Been Raised Previously McDermott Will & Emery
Nov
27
2019
No Judgment On Merits Necessary To Achieve Prevailing Party Status McDermott Will & Emery
Mar
27
2015
No Lanham Act Standing Without U.S. Trademark Use or Registration: Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
25
2023
No Laughing Matter: Comedian Sarah Silverman Sues Meta Platforms and OpenAI for Copyright Infringement Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Dec
18
2017
No Liability for Self-Publishing Platforms over Author’s Use of Unauthorized Cover Photo Proskauer Rose LLP
May
10
2011
No Likelihood of Confusion or Dilution Between CITIBANK and CAPITAL CITY BANK McDermott Will & Emery
Apr
7
2012
No Likelihood of Confusion or Dilution Between COACH for Test Preparation Materials and COACH for Handbags McDermott Will & Emery
Aug
26
2015
No Lost Profits for Extraterritorial Lost Contracts WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp. McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
6
2023
No Matter How Big You Are, Always Clear Your Trademarks Norris McLaughlin P.A.
Feb
11
2021
No Matter How Many Touched the Flowers, Single Infringement Begets Single Statutory Damages Award McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
26
2023
No Money, Mo’ Problems: Speculative Damages Award Cannot Stand McDermott Will & Emery
Nov
18
2021
No More Bites at the Apple: Imminent and Non-Speculative Standing Still Required McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
4
2021
No More Bites at the Apple: Intervening Junior User Can Force You to Get Your Head Out of the Cloud(s) McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
27
2016
No More Monkey Business in Copyright Law Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Feb
27
2019
No Motivation to Combine Necessary Where Secondary Reference Only Explains Primary Reference McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
5
2014
No Motivation to Combine Where Combination Requires Complete Redesign, Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc. McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
26
2019
No Motivation To Combine Where There is no Reasonable Expectation of Success McDermott Will & Emery
Dec
8
2022
No Mulligans Here: PTO Rewinds Reexamination Based on Estoppel McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
27
2023
No Need for Unnecessary RPI Determinations McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
5
2023
No Need to Be Explicit: Implicit Finding of Expectation of Success Is Sufficient McDermott Will & Emery
Aug
8
2016
No New Non-Compete Law for Massachusetts in 2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Apr
25
2017
No Nexus For Novartis Gilenya Patent Foley & Lardner 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