Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 167

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

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 2011-1576 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 8 2012

Under Section 102(g), in order to invalidate a patent claim on the ground of prior inventorship, an alleged infringer must prove either that it conceived of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice or that it reduced its invention to practice before the critical date of the patent-at-issue

Edwards Lifesciences AG v Corevalve Inc., Nos. 2011-1215, -1257 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 8 2012

The verdict that the patent was valid and infringed was upheld, after the Federal Circuit found the verdict to be supported by substantial evidence

Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 29 2012

Even if a structure corresponding to a means plus function claim is known in the prior art, it must still be disclosed in the patent’s specification in order to adequately claim the function

Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930

Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2011-1553, 2012-1017 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 16 2012

The indexing of an online publication describing an invention, while relevant to questions of public accessibility and obviousness, is no more important than other factors pointing to the article’s availability to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art

Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc., No. 2011-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 1 2012

Even if a claim does not include the word “means,” there is only a rebuttable presumption, and not an absolute conclusion, that 35 U.S.C. 112 6 was not intended to govern the claim; a written description limitation should not be read into a claim if it is not used in the claim

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 25 2012

To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus to constitute irreparable harm, consumer demand must be directly tied to the allegedly infringing feature

In re Energy Transp. Grp., Inc., Nos. 2011-1487, -1488, -1489 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 25 2012

A court may find that an accused device infringes an asserted patent even though it does not literally meet an explicit limitation if there is an insubstantial change in the way the accused device meets the limitation due to advances in technology

SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. et al., No. 2011-1346 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 25 2012

To determine whether matter incorporated by reference into a patent satisfies the disclosure-dedication rule, the host patent must inform one of skill in the art “that the incorporated document contains subject matter that is an alternative to a claim limitation” and the disclosure in the incorporated document must be of such specificity that one of skill in the art “could identify the subject matter that had been disclosed and not claimed”

< back next >