Lewis R Clayton

July 11, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Intellectual Property Litigation column, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner Lewis R. Clayton reviews recent decisions, including the Fourth Circuit's recognition, for the first time, of an exception to the Copyright Act's limitation to conduct in the United States, allowing a plaintiff to collect damages based on foreign conduct where there is a "predicate act" of infringement in the United States that permits future infringement abroad, and more.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

July 24, 2006 | National Law Journal

When the Patent Act was enacted in 1952, the obviousness requirement was explicitly mentioned in the statute for the first time. But in addressing the concept, the statute does more to describe a method of analysis than to establish a clear standard.

By Lewis R. Clayton

8 minute read

February 13, 2003 | Law.com

It wouldn't be difficult to imagine a copyright regime in which software is considered more of a business tool than a literary work. In that regime, fair use would be expanded to allow copying necessary for programs to work together smoothly, and copyright misuse would be applied to bar contractual limits on reverse engineering. However, as two recent decisions show, the federal courts are clearly going down a different path.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Robyn M. Sorid

6 minute read

April 05, 2004 | National Law Journal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 13 affirmed dismissal of the University of Rochester's patent infringement suit against Pfizer Inc. over the arthritis drug Celebrex. In this significant decision for the biotech industry, the panel strongly reaffirmed the court's commitment to enforcing the "written description" requirement of the Patent Act.

By Lewis R. Clayton

9 minute read

October 08, 2012 | Daily Report Online

The Patent Act has been interpreted to provide liability for direct patent infringement only when a single person or entity performs all the elements of a patent claim, either by itself or vicariously, through an agent. Does that mean it is possible for someone to avoid infringement liability by performing some of the steps of a method patent himself and inducing someone else to perform the rest or by inducing a group of persons to perform the steps, so that no one person does them all?

By Lewis R. Clayton

8 minute read

August 12, 2013 | National Law Journal

Last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which considered whether portions of human genes may be patented, generated an extraordinary amount of passion for an intellectual property case.

By Lewis R. Clayton

7 minute read

February 11, 2008 | National Law Journal

The 4th Circuit last year upheld the dismissal of a challenge to a parody of the trademarks of a luxury goods marketer. Its Vuitton decision is the first appellate opinion to consider trademark parody since the 2006 enactment of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act. Although the court analyzed each of the statutory factors for blurring claims, it placed great weight on its finding that the defendant had produced a successful parody � the same finding that motivated dismissal of an infringement claim.

By Lewis R. Clayton

9 minute read

May 14, 1999 | Law.com

Courts have recently tackled several significant issues in intellectual property litigation, including enjoining junk e-mails, trademark issues of first impression, claim construction, corroboration and jury trial rights in patent litigation, copyright misuse and the copyrightability of photographic copies of art works, and false advertising decisions concerning "meta tags." This paper provides an overview of the latest developments.

By Lewis R. Clayton

14 minute read

September 11, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Intellectual Property Litigation column, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner Lewis R. Clayton discusses recent developments, including decisions involving the use of football players' likenesses in video games, the standards for analyzing the obviousness of a claimed invention, Dish Network's commercial-skipping "Hopper" product, and more.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

June 21, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that defendants in patent infringement cases often seek to introduce into evidence opinions of counsel to prove good faith. Introducing such evidence, however, waives attorney-client and work product privileges for communications related to the opinion. Recently, the Federal Circuit ruled on the scope of such waivers, an issue that has divided lower courts.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read