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 136

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

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

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

IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc., Nos. 2010-1364, -1365 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2011)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 12 2011

Claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears, because extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray

Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., no. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2011)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 16 2011

A description in prose of an algorithm is sufficiently definite to identify the corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation under 112 6, and there is no infringement if a device is merely capable of being modified to perform the patented function

Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2011-1553, 2012-1017 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 16 2012

The indexing of an online publication describing an invention, while relevant to questions of public accessibility and obviousness, is no more important than other factors pointing to the article’s availability to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art

Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 15 2013

A claim construction must not exclude the preferred embodiments, the possibility of altering an accused device to meet claim limitations does not

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 12-1105 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2012

In a design patent obviousness analysis, a prior design that does not create the same visual impression as a patented design does not qualify as a primary reference