We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 137

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

Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc., No. 2011-1621 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 24 2013

An appeal is moot if the parties settle all of their claims and make a portion of the settlement payment contingent upon the outcome of the appeal

In re Acer Am. Corp

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 7 2010

A single defendant's presence 300 miles from the transferor venue, though in the same state, is not sufficient to preclude transfer

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

WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2010-1266 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2010).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 28 2010

An exclusive licensee with legal injury and the right to exclude the alleged infringer has constitutional standing to sue for infringement even though third parties have rights to sublicense the patent for other activities

Ilor, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2010-1117, 1172 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 18 2011

Absent misconduct during patent prosecution or litigation, “exceptional case” sanctions may be imposed under 35 U.S.C. 285 against a patent plaintiff only if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence both that: (1) the litigation was brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation including key assertions of claim interpretation objectively was baseless

In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., No. 2010-1141 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 11 2011

Evidence of commercial success offered in rebuttal to a prima facie case of obviousness does not have to be commensurate in scope with the claims in order to be considered, "so long as what was sold was within the scope of the claims."

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

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2010-1025 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 26 2011

A patent claim term should be defined by implication only if the specification manifests a clear intent to limit the term by using it in a manner consistent with only one single meaning