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 85

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

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

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

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

Content solutions, such as sports trading cards, are significantly limited by theme and physical confines, meaning that the finite number of available solutions are predictable

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2010

On summary judgment, a district court found invalid as obvious two patents covering pieces of sports memorabilia items attached to trading cards

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc

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

When infringement is not at issue, a lawsuit for breach of know-how and patent license agreement does not arise under patent law

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

Where an ambiguous disclosure otherwise might have sufficed to support an earlier priority date, contrary arguments made to persuade an examiner to allow the application may preclude the priority claim

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 11 2010

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the accused infringer, holding that a patent issuing on a continuation-in-part application related to collapsible storage containers was not entitled to an earlier filing date because material claimed had been disclaimed during prosecution of the priority patent by patentee’s attorney