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 113

Whirlpool sued by artist over designs for kitchenaid mixers

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 10 2013

Plaintiff Nicole Dinardo designs and sells hand painted KitchenAid Mixers. Whirlpool, which owns KitchenAid, allegedly approached Dinardo regarding

The court will weigh its declaratory judgment jurisdiction under a “totality of the circumstances” test, while weighing the objective words and actions of a patentee

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 16 2009

The district court granted a patentees motion to dismiss a preemptive suit filed by an alleged infringer because at the time the plaintiff filed the suit, the litigation was “too speculative a prospect to support declaratory judgment jurisdiction.”

In re Nintendo Co, Ltd

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 22 2009

In a case "featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer."

Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency

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

In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin

A determination of obviousness can be based on common sense available to the person of ordinary skill, and does not necessarily require expert opinion

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 16 2009

The asserted patent claimed a method for bulk e-mailing, where the number of successfully delivered e-mail messages was compared against a predetermined desired quantity

I4I Limited Partnership et al v Microsoft Corp

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 29 2009

A party must file a pre-verdict JMOL motion on all theories that it wishes to challenge with a post-verdict JMOL

Maker’s Mark dripping red wax trademark infringed by Cuervo high-end tequila

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 7 2010

The red dripping wax seal on Maker's Mark bourbon bottles is a strong trademark and was infringed by Jose Cuervo International when it applied a similar red wax seal to its 100th anniversary product, Reserva de la Familia, a high-end tequila

Novo Nordisk AS v Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 23 2010

The Hatch-Waxman Act only authorizes a counterclaim to correct or delete a patent number or expiration date listed in the FDA Orange Book; an ANDA defendant does not have standing to challenge any other listed information, including the use code description