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

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

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

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

The broadest reasonable construction of claim terms must be consistent with the specification and the claim language as read in light of the specification

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 27 2010

The patent claimed a floor finishing material for athletic surfaces and other floors “comprising” certain elements

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

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