Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 63

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., No. 2009-1544,-1545 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 30 2010

In order for a patent to claim priority through a chain of patent applications, each application in the priority chain must contain a specific reference to prior applications in the chain

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 2009-1403, -1491 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 30 2010

A method claim is directly infringed only if each step of the claimed method is performed

Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company, No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 22 2010

Leaving expired patent number markings on products after the patents have expired, even knowingly, does not show a purpose of deceiving the public

Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., No. 2009-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2010).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 22 2010

Running-royalty agreements can be relevant to lump-sum damages, but "some basis for comparison must exist in the evidence presented to the jury."

Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., No. 09-1102 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 22 2010

Inequitable conduct by inventors or patent attorneys causes a patent to be unenforceable, even as to an innocent co-inventor

Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc v Universal Security Instruments, Inc, 2009-1421

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 15 2010

Whether the inventorship of the patents as issued is correct does not determine the materiality of the statements in this case, just as whether concealed prior art would actually invalidate the patent is irrelevant to materiality

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 2009-1423

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 15 2010

Though a district court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, the court must provide its reasoning somewhere in the record when its underlying holdings would otherwise be ambiguous or unascertainable

Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2008-1334

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 15 2010

Even absent its actual use or performance, an apparatus claim directed to a computer that is claimed in functional terms is nonetheless infringed so long as the accused product is designed in such a way as to enable a user of that product to utilize the function without having to modify the product

The description of two embodiments with each tracking the language of different independent claims most reasonably supports different constructions of the same term in the independent claims

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
June 8 2010

The patentee sued for infringement of a patent covering a portable blood separator

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