Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 132

Presido Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., No. 2010-1355, 2011-1089 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 26 2012

A finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with a clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages

Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2010-1037 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2010).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 14 2010

For an invention to be deemed "abstract" and thus lacking patentability, it must exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter

Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady Technology LLC, No. 08-1425 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2010).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 14 2010

The patentee, having argued limits to its claims during prosecution in order to distinguish cited prior art, may not later argue that those limitations do not apply to the claims

ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, No. 2010-1227 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2011).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 22 2011

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of noninfringement, even if the declaratory judgment plaintiff's sole infringement defense is based on state law

In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, Nos. 2009-1451, -1452, -1468, -1469, 2010-1017 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 22 2011

District courts have broad discretion in complex litigation to limit asserted claims as long as plaintiffs have an opportunity to have all unique claims adjudicated

Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, no. 10-1144 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2011)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 1 2011

The written description requirement for CIP claims is not satisfied when the original specification failed to demonstrate constructive possession of the invention, and instead merely recited the problem and a claim to all possible solutions

Billups-Rothenberg, Inc. v. Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc. and Bio-Rad Labs, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 20 2011

A patent that claims a genus must disclose either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus

Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 2010-1145, -1177 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2011)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 8 2011

The burden of proof for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents still is a preponderance of the evidence even when an alleged equivalent is claimed in a separate patent

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C., No. 2010-1091 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011.)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
January 18 2011

When proof of patent infringement is necessary to show that a plaintiff would have prevailed in an underlying litigation but for alleged malfeasance of its patent counsel, this presents a substantial question of patent law conferring 1338 jurisdiction on a federal district court hearing a malpractice case

Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, no. 2010-1002 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2011)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 4 2011

A patent cannot be corrected in so significant a manner as to change a method limitation in a claim to an apparatus limitation, even to make the claim operable or to sustain its validity

next >