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 ascending Organization
May
30
2013
Inter Partes Review May Provide a Process to Challenge the Validity of a Patent That Is More Economical and Efficient Than Patent Litigation Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Dec
23
2015
Inter Partes Review Is Not for Pending Claims McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
30
2016
Inter Partes Review Institution Decisions Not Appealable, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Remains Standard McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
21
2014
Inter Partes Review Initial Filings of Paramount Importance: What Is Clear After Two Years of Inter Partes Review Under the America Invents Act (AIA) Mintz
Jul
29
2014
Inter Partes Review Appeals: What You Need to Know [VIDEO] Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jun
6
2014
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Statistics (2013 vs. May 2014) Armstrong Teasdale
Nov
4
2014
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Depositions: Civility and Decorum Must Prevail McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
13
2014
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Decisions as Evidence in Litigation? Armstrong Teasdale
May
31
2017
Inter Partes Re-Examination Estoppel Saves Rejected Claims McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
2
2015
Inter Partes (IPR) Review Petitions: If It’s Important, Don’t Put It in a Footnote McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
11
2014
Intentionally Omitting Construction of Independent Claim Terms—Did This Cause the Denial of Apple’s Petition For Inter Partes Review? Armstrong Teasdale
Feb
5
2013
Intentional Infringement of Copyright with Knowledge of Copyright Owner’s Forum Supports Claim of Personal Jurisdiction McDermott Will & Emery
Apr
10
2014
Intent To Use – It’s Not The Thought That Counts Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Apr
26
2019
Intended Use Preamble not Limiting; Diligence Must Only be Reasonably Continuous McDermott Will & Emery
Sep
26
2013
Intema Files Petition for Grant of Certification Re: Patents Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Aug
4
2014
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.: Denying Motion for Additional Pages for Petitioner Reply Faegre Drinker
Oct
31
2014
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Limited, Final Written Decision Update IPR2013-00266 Faegre Drinker
Jul
31
2014
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Limited, Final Written Decision IPR2013-00128 Faegre Drinker
May
1
2024
Intelligent AI Guidance from the USPTO Identifies Potential Perils Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Nov
18
2016
Intellectual Ventures Petitions Federal Circuit for Full Court Review Mintz
May
1
2017
Intellectual Ventures Loses Claims Based on § 101, Collateral Estoppel, Standing McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
30
2017
Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC: Message Received: Direct Infringement of System Claim Requires Evidence of Use McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
9
2015
Intellectual Ventures I v. Capitol One Bank: Mental Steps Doctrine Making Strong Comeback, Courtesy of Alice Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Aug
29
2016
Intellectual Property: When Applying Alice, Evaluate Invention as Whole McDermott Will & Emery
Jul
13
2016
Intellectual Property: What Type of Sale Constitutes an On-Sale Bar? Mintz
Jun
21
2021
Intellectual Property: What Are the Differences between Patent, Trademark, and Copyright? Norris McLaughlin P.A.
Apr
27
2022
Intellectual Property: Understand It to Protect What You Own, Drive Value to Your Business and Positively Impact Your Bottom Line Davis|Kuelthau, s.c.
May
20
2021
Intellectual Property: Top 5 Tips for Brand Protection Katten
Oct
20
2016
Intellectual Property: Review of Compulsory Licenses in Colombia Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Dec
12
2016
Intellectual Property: In re NuVasive – Explain Yourself! Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
6
2017
Intellectual Property: Importance of Renown and Proof Thereof K&L Gates
Jan
30
2015
Intellectual Property: Firm Disqualified Because Preliminary Injunction Is “Directly Adverse” to Another Client McDermott Will & Emery
Oct
13
2021
Intellectual Property — Can Our Creations Also Create? The DABUS AI System as a Named Inventor [PODCAST] Mintz
Apr
4
2023
Intellectual Property Tribunal of China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases ‘Typical Cases’ of 2022 List Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Mar
26
2014
Intellectual Property Trends in the Energy Sector 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