Lewis R Clayton

September 06, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, reviews a recent Federal Circuit decision that set a more demanding standard for patentees seeking to prove that patent infringement is "willful" - a necessary predicate to an award of enhanced damages - and held that defendants who introduce opinions of counsel to rebut charges of willful infringement will not risk waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges claimed for the work of separate trial counsel.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

January 16, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that although the present law of design patents traces back at least 135 years, the Federal Circuit has issued just a handful of design patent opinions. But a case concerning the design of an "ornamental nail buffer" has convinced the Federal Circuit to convene the en banc court to consider an array of basic questions of design patent law.

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

June 11, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that last month, resolving a long-standing conflict between two of its prior opinions, the Federal Circuit, acting en banc, held that "product by process" patents cover only products made by the described process.

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

July 01, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that American patent applications typically are prosecuted ex parte � without the participation of any interested parties other than the applicant and the patent examiner.

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

January 17, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, writes that this is a time of change in patent law. Last May, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified (and, depending on your viewpoint, changed) the rules governing injunctive relief in patent cases, and will will soon issue an important decision on obviousness. And at least a minority of the Federal Circuit believes that court ought to re-examine whether deference should be accorded to trial court decisions on claim construction.

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

May 15, 2007 | Law.com

With more criminal cases depending on forensic computer searches, courts must decide between the user's perspective of a computer as a locked box protecting its virtual contents, and the law enforcement perspective of a computer as a physical container, easily opened. A recent 10th Circuit case turned a spotlight on how appellate courts grapple with third-party consents to search computers, recognizing for the first time that a password-protected computer is like a locked box. Will other courts follow suit?

By Lewis R. Clayton

9 minute read

April 22, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Lewis R. Clayton

11 minute read

July 14, 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, including a holding that Solo Cup's printing of expired patent numbers on its products was justified by good faith reliance on counsel's advice, dismissal of copyright infringement claims against YouTube and more.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

June 12, 2008 | Law.com

For over 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine of patent exhaustion, holding that the initial sale of patented merchandise terminates all patent rights to that item. The owner of an automobile, which includes hundreds of patented components, may transfer it without fear of incurring liability for selling a patented item. In Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., 2008 WL 2329719 (June 9, 2008), a unanimous Supreme Court warmly endorsed the exhaustion doctrine in an action brought against one of the world's largest manufacturers of notebook computers.

By Lewis R. Clayton

12 minute read

August 12, 2004 | Law.com

Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense -- while an "innocent" infringer who copies or distributes a work unaware that it is violating a copyright may have limited liability for damages, its pure state of mind is not a defense to infringement itself. How does this principle apply to the Internet, where text and images are instantly, and often automatically, copied, recopied and distributed over a vast worldwide computer network?

By Lewis R. Clayton

9 minute read