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 255

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

No “prudential reasons” or perceived increases in efficiency can trump the lack of a case or controversy brought about by a covenant not to sue that extinguishes all current and future claims

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 2 2010

The alleged infringer brought a declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement of two patents

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

In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin

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

Novo Nordisk AS v Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 23 2010

The Hatch-Waxman Act only authorizes a counterclaim to correct or delete a patent number or expiration date listed in the FDA Orange Book; an ANDA defendant does not have standing to challenge any other listed information, including the use code description

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