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 63

The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark

Trading Technologies, Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 2008-1392, -1393, -1422 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2010)

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

For the "all elements" rule of the doctrine of equivalents, claim vitiation applies when there is a clear, substantial difference or a difference in kind, as opposed to a subtle difference in degree

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

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

In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)

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

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc

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

When infringement is not at issue, a lawsuit for breach of know-how and patent license agreement does not arise under patent law

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n

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

While not every preference constitutes a best mode for purposes of 112, the preferred embodiment of the invention must be disclosed

I4I Ltd. Partnership & Infrastructures For Info. Inc., v. Microsoft Corp

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

The test for willfulness is distinct and separate from the factors guiding a district court's discretion regarding whether and by how much to enhance damages in light of a willfulness finding