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

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

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

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

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

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

The secondary considerations of non-obviousness of commercial success, failure of others, and industry praise must be linked to the claimed invention, not pre-existing market share

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2010

Patentee sued for infringement of a patent for a “bundle breaker” used for breaking multiple, uneven bundles of corrugated board