Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 167

In an obviousness analysis, the ultimate inference as to the existence of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of “common sense” appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 3 2010

A jury found that an accused infringer failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that claims of three patents covering barbell-shaped hitch pin locks that secure trailers to cars would have been obvious

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 3 2010

For obviousness-type double patenting, a claim to a method of using a composition is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent's claim to the identical composition where the earlier patent discloses the identical use; where multiple uses are disclosed in the earlier patent, a later patent impermissibly extends the monopoly if it claims any of the disclosed uses

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

Claim construction arguments were waived when new constructions were argued only after the claims had been construed and the jury returned a verdict

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The patents-in-suit were directed at security with respect to the use of global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine the physical location of mobile devices, such as cellular phones

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., v. Eisai Co., Ltd.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 21 2010

A subsequent ANDA filer has a legally cognizable interest in when the first filer's exclusivity period begins, such that delay in triggering that period qualifies as "injury-in-fact" for the purposes of Article III

The simple inclusion of a novel, yet functionally unrelated limitation, such as one requiring “informing” an individual of the properties of the claim, adds no novelty to that claim for anticipation purposes

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The assignor owned two patents directed to the muscle relaxant drug Metaxalone

A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The patentee sued the alleged infringer on a patent involving safety needles for blood collection

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

A patentee does not surrender access to equivalency arguments for amendments involving “merely tangential” limitations that were not grounds for prosecution rejection

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

The patentee sued four entitiesa South Korean corporation and its predecessor, along with a U.S. subsidiary and its predecessorfor infringement of six patents related to VCR technology

Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 16 2010

The defense of prosecution laches requires a finding of prejudice as shown by evidence of intervening rights; for inequitable conduct, a finding of intent to deceive cannot rely solely on the same evidence used to support a finding of materiality

next >