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 246

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC, no. 2011-1173, -1200 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 15 2012

In order for a means-plus-function claim to be interpreted to encompass a broader generic structure, even if the generic structure is well-known in the art, the generic structure must appear in the patent specification and be clearly linked to the claimed function

Amkor Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2010-1550 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 14 2012

When a possible range of conception dates are provided for prior art under section 102(g)(2), the art is not automatically given the latest possible date, but alleged infringers must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior art was conceived in the United States before the patented invention

Hyatt v. Kappos

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

In a civil action brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 145, new evidence is generally admissible, and the issues that it raises must be reviewed de novo

Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 2013-1072 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 23 2013

The unrestricted sale of a patented apparatus exhausts patent protection on the methods of using the apparatus

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

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2010).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 28 2010

The inclusion of mental steps that are not separately patentable in a method claim does not negate patentability of the claim as a whole when other required steps are of a "transformative nature."

Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2011

Summary judgment of non-obviousness was rejected where the district court failed to give appropriate weight to analogous prior art and improperly relied on a "layperson" level of ordinary skill in the art

A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 2 2010

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions

Res judicata does not apply to a claim for patent infringement based on products that were not in existence at the time of an earlier lawsuit between the same parties

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 10 2012

The patent at issue generally claimed primary and secondary eyeglass frames that could be mounted to one another magnetically

In re Applied Materials, Inc., Nos. 2011-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 14 2012

The patent was obvious because it was simply an optimization of result-effective variables