Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 224

Presido Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., No. 2010-1355, 2011-1089 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 26 2012

A finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with a clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages

Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc., No. 2011-1621 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
January 24 2013

An appeal is moot if the parties settle all of their claims and make a portion of the settlement payment contingent upon the outcome of the appeal

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

Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corporation, et. al, 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. March 4, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

Following an order granting a permanent injunction, an infringer may still be held in contempt of that order despite good faith efforts to achieve a non-infringing design-around; and even if the infringer achieves a non-infringing design-around, it may still be held in contempt for failure to comply with the clear terms of the order

Federal courts have exclusive federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims involving the prosecution of U.S. patent applications

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 9 2010

A patent applicant filed suit against her patent prosecution attorney for negligently failing to file applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (which provides a unified procedure for filing a single patent application in multiple countries) and for various acts of negligence relating to the preparation and filing of U.S. patent applications

In an interference proceeding, the board must interpret the copied claim in view of the originating disclosure for a written description challenge and in view of the host disclosure for a validity challenge based on prior art

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 11 2010

The senior party provoked an interference with the junior party by copying the claims of the junior party’s patent into the senior party’s application

Although reluctant to exclude an embodiment, the court must “not allow the disclosed embodiment to outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence”

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 11 2010

In a patent interference appeal, the district court construed the claim terms and found that the junior party’s patent did not overlap with, and was not obvious in light of the senior party’s application, and was therefore patentably distinct

In determining inequitable conduct, the withholding of a “highly material” reference alone is not sufficient to establish intent to deceive the Patent Office

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 11 2010

The accused infringer alleged that patentee’s failure to disclose an article to the examiner rendered the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct

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

next >