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

Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 16 2010

A foreign defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction when it imports and controls the distribution of allegedly infringing products into the forum

Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., No. 2011-1096 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2011).

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

The Federal Circuit confirmed that the Supreme Court's earlier decision in eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C. jettisoned the presumption of irreparable harm as it applies to determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief

In re Stepan Co., No. 2010-1261 (Fed. Cir. Cct. 5, 2011)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 12 2011

In rejecting a patent as invalid during reexamination, the Board of Patent Appeals’ reliance on the same type of rejection or the same prior art references relied upon by the examiner, alone, is insufficient to avoid a new ground of rejection where it propounds new facts and rationales to advance a rejection none of which were previously raised by the examiner

St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., No. 2012-1452 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2013

Consonance requires that the challenged patent, the reference patent, and the restricted patent claim none of the same inventions identified by the