martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Andrew S. Ehmke Document Search Results (6) Sort by:  | Intellectual Property Protection for the Cloud
Andrew S. Ehmke; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 30, 2012, previously published on April 19, 2012 There are many aspects of cloud technology that could lead to a patent. “[A]ny new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” is eligible for a patent. Within the cloud environment, potential areas for patenting include...
| | Qimonda's Impact on Patent Licenses When a Licensor Goes Bankrupt in a Foreign Land
Randall E. Colson, Andrew S. Ehmke, Autumn D. Highsmith, Robin E. Phelan; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 10, 2012, previously published on January 9, 2012 Can a U.S. patent licensee whose license has been rejected by a licensor under foreign law in a foreign bankruptcy rely on the protections of § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion...
| | Lipstick on a Pig—A Claim’s Preamble Does Not Confer Patentability on an Otherwise Unpatentable Process
Andrew S. Ehmke, Scott Jarratt; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 10, 2012, previously published on January 9, 2012 In CyberSource v. Retail Decisions (decided August 16, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the claims in a software patent do not escape the patentability standards articulated in Bilski v. Kappos just by virtue of being drafted as so-called “Beauregard”...
| | Qimonda's Impact on Patent Licenses When a Licensor Goes Bankrupt in a Foreign Land
Randall E. Colson, Andrew S. Ehmke, Autumn D. Highsmith, Robin E. Phelan; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article December 26, 2011, previously published on December 22, 2011 Can a U.S. patent licensee whose license has been rejected by a licensor under foreign law in a foreign bankruptcy rely on the protections of § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion...
| | Lipstick on a Pig: A Claim’s Preamble Does Not Confer Patentability on an Otherwise Unpatentable Process
Andrew S. Ehmke, Scott Jarratt; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article December 26, 2011, previously published on December 22, 2011 In CyberSource v. Retail Decisions (decided August 16, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the claims in a software patent do not escape the patentability standards articulated in Bilski v. Kappos just by virtue of being drafted as so-called “Beauregard”...
|  | Weathering the Storm: Qimonda, Patent Licenses and § 365(n)
Randall E. Colson, Andrew S. Ehmke, Autumn D. Highsmith, Robin E. Phelan; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article November 10, 2011, previously published on November 8, 2011 On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”). The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to...
|
|