Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 236

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

The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark

Content solutions, such as sports trading cards, are significantly limited by theme and physical confines, meaning that the finite number of available solutions are predictable

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

On summary judgment, a district court found invalid as obvious two patents covering pieces of sports memorabilia items attached to trading cards

Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corporation, et. al, 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. March 4, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

Following an order granting a permanent injunction, an infringer may still be held in contempt of that order despite good faith efforts to achieve a non-infringing design-around; and even if the infringer achieves a non-infringing design-around, it may still be held in contempt for failure to comply with the clear terms of the order

Federal courts have exclusive federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims involving the prosecution of U.S. patent applications

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

A patent applicant filed suit against her patent prosecution attorney for negligently failing to file applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (which provides a unified procedure for filing a single patent application in multiple countries) and for various acts of negligence relating to the preparation and filing of U.S. patent applications

A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

Following a five-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict that defendant willfully infringed claims of a patent relating to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, but that certain dependent claims were obvious

Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design

In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 2 2010

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference

Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 10 2010

District courts performing reasonable royalty calculations must exercise vigilance when considering past licenses to technologies other than the patent in suit

next >