Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 85

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., v. Eisai Co., Ltd.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 21 2010

A subsequent ANDA filer has a legally cognizable interest in when the first filer's exclusivity period begins, such that delay in triggering that period qualifies as "injury-in-fact" for the purposes of Article III

The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu AS

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 4 2010

Because the claims, specification, prosecution history, and prior art all suggested a uniform meaning of the claim term, and because no "special definition" was provided, the patentee had not acted as his own lexicographer

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 27 2010

If an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then, for purposes of infringement, comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product

Green Edge Enterprises, LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

Despite patentee’s failure to identify the accurate trade name or product code of a preferred product, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding failure to satisfy best mode if one of ordinary skill in the art could have discovered the preferred product

A patentee does not surrender access to equivalency arguments for amendments involving “merely tangential” limitations that were not grounds for prosecution rejection

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

The patentee sued four entitiesa South Korean corporation and its predecessor, along with a U.S. subsidiary and its predecessorfor infringement of six patents related to VCR technology

In the absence of clear and unambiguous language to the contrary, general claim release language is insufficient to infer an intent to release all claims of patent invalidity and unenforceability

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

In previous litigation for breach of contract, the parties reached a settlement agreement that granted the current plaintiff an option to acquire a nonexclusive license to the patent-in-suit. After the time to exercise that option had lapsed, the plaintiff was concerned that it could not develop the relevant technologya flying wind turbinewithout risking an infringement suit

Generally, claim preambles do not limit the claims; but dissenting judge argues for new rule that all preambles should limit claim scope

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

The holders of a patent claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation appealed an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement

The board erred in ruling that priority is established if a person of skill in the art could “envision” the invention of the claims

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

This consolidated appeal was from two related patent interference priority contests between two parties, "Sugano" and "Goeddel," decided by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the USPTO ("The Board"

One system that accomplishes a function mechanically and another system that accomplishes the same function using magnetic force function in fundamentally different ways for purposes of determining infringement

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 15 2010

The accused infringers appealed from a final determination of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that certain of their ground fault circuit interrupters (“GFCIs”) infringed various patents and that those patents were not invalid

A patentee does not misuse his patent when he offers to license a patent while inducing a third party not to license its separate patent covering competing technology

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 15 2010

The patentee and its joint venture partner established standards for compact disks