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

Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., et al., Nos. 11-1355, -1356, -1357, -1358, -1359 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 20 2012

A patentee's proposed claim construction was found to be objectively baseless as a matter of law, justifying Rule 11 sanctions and potentially a fee award

Pregis Corp. v. Kapos, No. 2010-1492, 1532 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012)

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

A potential infringer cannot sue the Patent Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedure Act to attack the validity of an issued patent

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2011

The Federal Circuit held that the evidence of the patentee’s litigation misconduct and objectively-baseless lawsuit filed without reasonable pre-suit investigation properly supported the district court’s finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and warranted Rule 11 sanctions

Niel Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 26 2012

An obviousness determination based on a “common-sense” approach without weighing objective indicia of nonobviousness represents an impermissible reliance on hindsight

Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The

Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

Even if a structure corresponding to a means plus function claim is known in the prior art, it must still be disclosed in the patent’s specification in order to adequately claim the function

Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex, No. 2011-1048 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 26 2011

Prejudgment interest is a form of compensatory damages; therefore, a settlement agreement limiting the amount of “actual damages” precludes an additional award of interest where not explicitly provided for

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 25 2012

To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus to constitute irreparable harm, consumer demand must be directly tied to the allegedly infringing feature

In re NTP, Inc., No. 2010-1243 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2011

During reexamination, the BPAI’s “broadest reasonable claim construction” was overly broad because it encompassed prior art specifically excluded by the inventors

Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, no. 2009-1242 (Fed Cir. Feb. 27, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 7 2012

An abstract idea cannot become a patentable process by virtue of incidental connections to the physical world or the addition of a computer limitation that does not play a significant role in the performance of the claimed method