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

Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., et al., Nos. 11-1355, -1356, -1357, -1358, -1359 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 20 2012

A patentee's proposed claim construction was found to be objectively baseless as a matter of law, justifying Rule 11 sanctions and potentially a fee award

Pregis Corp. v. Kapos, No. 2010-1492, 1532 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 14 2012

A potential infringer cannot sue the Patent Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedure Act to attack the validity of an issued patent

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2011

The Federal Circuit held that the evidence of the patentee’s litigation misconduct and objectively-baseless lawsuit filed without reasonable pre-suit investigation properly supported the district court’s finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and warranted Rule 11 sanctions

Niel Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 26 2012

An obviousness determination based on a “common-sense” approach without weighing objective indicia of nonobviousness represents an impermissible reliance on hindsight

Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The

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

Revision Military, Inc. & Revision Military, Ltd. v. Balboa Manufacturing Co., No. 2011-1628 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 8 2012

A preliminary injunction enjoining patent infringement involves substantive matters unique to patent law, and therefore, is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit

In re Jung

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2011

The PTO's burden of production is satisfied by meeting the requirements of Section 132 to notify the applicant of the reasons for the rejection and the identification of the references relied upon for the rejection

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

Outside The Box Innovations, LLC, et al. v. Travel Caddy, Inc., et al., No. 2009-1171 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 19 2012

A district court held a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct for two reasons