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

In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin

Novo Nordisk AS v Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 23 2010

The Hatch-Waxman Act only authorizes a counterclaim to correct or delete a patent number or expiration date listed in the FDA Orange Book; an ANDA defendant does not have standing to challenge any other listed information, including the use code description

No “prudential reasons” or perceived increases in efficiency can trump the lack of a case or controversy brought about by a covenant not to sue that extinguishes all current and future claims

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

The alleged infringer brought a declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement of two patents

Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc v Universal Security Instruments, Inc, 2009-1421

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 15 2010

Whether the inventorship of the patents as issued is correct does not determine the materiality of the statements in this case, just as whether concealed prior art would actually invalidate the patent is irrelevant to materiality

The broadest reasonable construction of claim terms must be consistent with the specification and the claim language as read in light of the specification

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 27 2010

The patent claimed a floor finishing material for athletic surfaces and other floors “comprising” certain elements

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 2009-1423

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 15 2010

Though a district court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, the court must provide its reasoning somewhere in the record when its underlying holdings would otherwise be ambiguous or unascertainable

SiRF Technology, Inc. v. ITC

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 23 2010

The International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued an exclusion and cease and desist order on importation of certain Global Positioning System ("GPS") devices and products after finding that the devices and products infringed certain patents

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

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