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
17
2014
Handi Quilter, Inc. and Tacony Corp. v. Bernina International AG: Procedure for Filing Supplemental Evidence Faegre Drinker
Jun
17
2014
Natural Products Eligibility Guidance – Post-Forum Comments Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
17
2014
QSC Audio Products, Inc. v. Crest Audio, Inc.: Denying Request to File Motion for Supplemental Information Faegre Drinker
Jun
17
2014
GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.: Denying Motions to Cross-Examine Declarant Faegre Drinker
Jun
16
2014
Federal Circuit Issues Decision Affirming Obviousness of a Molecule Patent Claim Katten
Jun
16
2014
Google, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Terminate Faegre Drinker
Jun
16
2014
PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) A Provides Guidance on the Scope of Responsive Briefs Armstrong Teasdale
Jun
16
2014
Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arrendi S.A.R.L.: Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review Faegre Drinker
Jun
16
2014
Supreme Court Decision May Lead to More False Advertising Claims in Food and Beverage Industry Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Jun
16
2014
Gone Judge – Judge Randall Rader To Resign Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
16
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – June 16, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
13
2014
Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited Partnership Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions to Compel Additional Discovery Faegre Drinker
Jun
13
2014
California Court Broadly Defines What Information Can Qualify as a Trade Secret Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Jun
13
2014
Covidien LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. Final Written Decision Faegre Drinker
Jun
13
2014
Cloning: It’s not what you think – Changes to ANVISA’s (Brazil Health Service Agency) “Clone” Procedure Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Jun
13
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – June 13, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
13
2014
Novel Copyright Action Involving Webcasting and Geofencing to be Decided in Harrisonburg, Virginia Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Jun
13
2014
Aptwater, Inc. v. Thinkvillage-Kerfoot, LLC, Order Denying Motions to Terminate IPR2014-00132, 00133 Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
Cyanotech Corporation v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Order Addressing the Proper Scope of a Reply Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
AL-KO Kober, LLC v. Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc., Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
Aker Biomarine AS v. Neptune Tech. and BioResources Inc.: Order Granting Leave to File Motion for Additional Discovery Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
Carl Zeiss SMT GMBH v. Nikon Corp., Denying Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Strike Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Pom Wonderful to Pursue Lanham Act Claims against Coca-Cola Mintz
Jun
12
2014
Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Expansion of the Inducement Doctrine ArentFox Schiff LLP
Jun
12
2014
Symantec Corporation v. RPost Communications Limited: Denying Motion to Seal Exhibit on Federal Rules of Evidence 408 Grounds Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – June 12, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
12
2014
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC v. William R. Kowalski, Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
Macronix International Co., Ltd. v. Spansion LLC: Decision on Request for Rehearing of Institution Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publishing, Inc., Final Written Decision Faegre Drinker
Jun
12
2014
Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying Inter Partes Review: Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Company Faegre Drinker
Jun
11
2014
Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc.: Order Authorizing Motion for Observations and Denying Motion to Strike Faegre Drinker
Jun
11
2014
Motorola Mobility LLC, Google Inc., and Apple Inc. v. Arendi S.A.R.L.: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review Faegre Drinker
Jun
11
2014
Dollar Tree's "Scrub Buddies" Cleaning Cloths Targeted for Alleged Design Patent Infringement Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Jun
11
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – June 11, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
11
2014
UK High Court Confirms Jurisdiction to Grant Cross-border Declaration of Non-infringement Mintz
Jun
11
2014
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Order Regarding Proposed Challenge to Scope of Reply IPR2013-00368, 371, 372 Faegre Drinker
Jun
10
2014
Hershey Is Not So Sweet on Maryland Senator’s HERSHEY Campaign Logo Mintz
Jun
10
2014
Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper, Order Denying Authorization to Oppose Request for Rehearing IPR2014-00156 Faegre Drinker
Jun
10
2014
Patent Co-Owner’s Refusal to Join Suit Defeats Standing to Sue for Patent Infringement Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Jun
10
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – June 10, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
9
2014
Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper: Order Denying Request for Rehearing of Institution of Inter Partes Review Faegre Drinker
Jun
9
2014
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Grants in Part Request for Rehearing of its Decision on Live Testimony from Inventor Armstrong Teasdale
Jun
9
2014
Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc. Order Granting Additional Briefing IPR2013-00292 Faegre Drinker
Jun
9
2014
PTO Litigation Center Report – June 9, 2014 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
9
2014
Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC, Decision: Denying Request for Reconsideration of Institution Decision IPR2014-00070 Faegre Drinker
Jun
9
2014
Federal Circuit Finds that Public Interest Group Lacks Standing to Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decision Armstrong Teasdale
Jun
8
2014
How Should a Petitioner Address the Technological Invention Exemption in a Petition for Covered Business Method Review? Armstrong Teasdale
Jun
8
2014
What’s My Motivation? To Successfully Petition the PTAB, Experts Should Articulate Reasons for Combining References Armstrong Teasdale
Jun
7
2014
The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Induced Infringement Proskauer Rose LLP
Jun
6
2014
Providing Expert Testimony On Obviousness Is No Guarantee Of Having A Petition Granted Armstrong Teasdale
 

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