Lewis R Clayton

November 07, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, reviews recent developments of interest, including the Federal Circuit's new pronouncement on business method patents, an injunction stopping publication of a Harry Potter encyclopedia, a discussion of the effect of the Copyright Act's first sale doctrine on unauthorized sale in the United States of copyrighted products that were manufactured and sold by the copyright owner overseas and a decision on reverse payments in the pharmaceutical industry.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

May 12, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, reviews recent decisions of interest involving the preliminary injunction standard in copyright cases, private party false advertising claims against medical device makers when the FDA has not made a finding of noncompliance, and content-producing news organizations' claims against news aggregators.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

September 14, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that a series of recent Federal Circuit opinions - as well as the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in a case concerning a controversial medical treatment patent - highlight the continuing ferment over the doctrine of patent eligibility.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

March 10, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, reviews recent cases involving the right of publicity and the use of athletes' likenesses in fantasy sports games, the Visual Artists Rights Act, the de novo review standard for claim construction in the Federal Circuit, and more.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

March 20, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that Paragraph 2 of �112 of the Patent Act imposes the requirement that patent claims be definite. It provides that a specification must "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." While this requirement is fundamental, it is seldom the basis for a successful challenge to patent validity.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

June 26, 2002 | New York Law Journal

F or years , the Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decided to review patent rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seemingly reflecting the view that, as a specialized court, the Federal Circuit knew best how to construe the Patent Act. This Supreme Court term is different. The Court has heard three patent cases and, within the past month, reversed the Federal Circuit in two significant opinions, one dealing with the doctrine of equivalents and the other with the scope of the Federal Circuit`

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

March 09, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, discusses a decision that struck down as unconstitutional key portions of Washington State's publicity statute, the test for infringement of a patent covering a system that includes elements that are in the possession of more than one person, and the Ninth Circuit's repudiation of an 2002 trademark dilution holding.

By Lewis R. Clayton

13 minute read

November 17, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that, in a traditional trademark case, two competitors who use similar marks on their products debate whether consumers will be misled to believe that both products come from a common source. The courts have a more difficult time in cases where a trademark is used, not to identify a source, but instead to describe some characteristic of the defendant's product.

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

November 17, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that, in 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the failure of an accused infringer to produce an opinion of counsel concluding that it had not infringed a valid and enforceable patent would warrant an adverse inference that either no opinion was obtained or that the opinion was unfavorable. But recently, all of that has changed ...

By Lewis R. Clayton

10 minute read

April 15, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, asks: Is the patent system in need of "reform"? And what would reform look like?

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read