Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 132

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

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

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

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

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

next >