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 189

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

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

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

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

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

Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex, No. 2011-1048 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 26 2011

Prejudgment interest is a form of compensatory damages; therefore, a settlement agreement limiting the amount of “actual damages” precludes an additional award of interest where not explicitly provided for

When a commercial product meets all of the claim limitations, a comparison to that product may support a finding of infringement

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The district court entered a judgment that the accused infringer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product would not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit

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