Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 106

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

A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

Following a five-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict that defendant willfully infringed claims of a patent relating to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, but that certain dependent claims were obvious

Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design

Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 23 2010

Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier-filed application date requires that the missing descriptive matter must be present in the original application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure

I4I Ltd. Partnership & Infrastructures For Info. Inc., v. Microsoft Corp

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 16 2010

The test for willfulness is distinct and separate from the factors guiding a district court's discretion regarding whether and by how much to enhance damages in light of a willfulness finding

Trading Technologies, Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 2008-1392, -1393, -1422 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 2 2010

For the "all elements" rule of the doctrine of equivalents, claim vitiation applies when there is a clear, substantial difference or a difference in kind, as opposed to a subtle difference in degree

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v Barr Laboratories, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 2 2010

In a patent infringement suit involving claims directed to the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, the patent at issue was the third in a chain of related divisional patents

In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 2 2010

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference

Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 2 2010

An applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO

George Clinton’s use of “dog” and panting in song is copyrightable subject matter

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 20 2009

Bridgeport Music, Inc. (“Bridgeport”), owner of the publishing rights to George Clinton’s best-known work, “Atomic Dog,” sued UMG Recordings Inc. (“UMG”) for copyright infringement

next >