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

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

A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim

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

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions

Malpractice claims against patent attorneys necessarily rely on federal law because the fiduciary duties owed by patent counsel are governed by federal statutes and the manual of patent examination procedure

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

The initial controversy before the district court concerned fifteen claims made by the plaintiff-inventorunder a combination of federal and state lawagainst his former patent counsel and employer, alleging the improper listing of a co-inventor on the patent application and improper legal representation of that individual due to the conflicting interests of the plaintiff

The fact that a patentee used equivocal language when communicating with an accused infringer will not prevent a court from applying equitable estoppel

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

The district court granted the accused infringer’s motion for dismissal on equitable estoppel grounds based on the patentee’s three years of silence after contacting the accused infringer concerning infringement

Oral testimony can be used to prove the scope of a printed publication as an anticipating reference

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

A jury found the patent infringed and valid

A patentee’s rights are only exhausted by a sale within the United States

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

The patent involved single use cameras

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

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

Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2008-1334

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

Even absent its actual use or performance, an apparatus claim directed to a computer that is claimed in functional terms is nonetheless infringed so long as the accused product is designed in such a way as to enable a user of that product to utilize the function without having to modify the product