Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 233

The most important factor in determining whether an exclusive license transfers sufficient rights to render the licensee the owner of the patent is the nature and scope of the licensor’s retained right to sue accused infringers

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 18 2010

The patents-in-suit disclosed and claimed cochlear implants and related technologies used to improve hearing

Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 10 2012

A computer-related means-plus-function term must disclose either a corresponding structure or an algorithm in its specification to meet the claim definiteness requirements of section 112 2

The secondary considerations of non-obviousness of commercial success, failure of others, and industry praise must be linked to the claimed invention, not pre-existing market share

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 31 2010

Patentee sued for infringement of a patent for a “bundle breaker” used for breaking multiple, uneven bundles of corrugated board

WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2010-1266 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2010).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
December 28 2010

An exclusive licensee with legal injury and the right to exclude the alleged infringer has constitutional standing to sue for infringement even though third parties have rights to sublicense the patent for other activities

Bettcher Industries, Inc., v. Bunzl USA, Inc., No. 2011-1038, -1046 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2011)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 12 2011

A Patent Office examiner’s opinion on a patent’s validity is not “finally determined” and grounds for estoppel under 35 U.S.C. 315(c) in civil court unless all appeal rights regarding that decision, including in civil court, have been exhausted

Aventis Pharma S.A. & Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Hospira, Inc. et al., Nos. 07-CV-0721 & 08-CV-0496 (Fed. Cir. April 9, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 11 2012

Inequitable conduct finding affirmed on the merits after Therasense, and claim construction and obviousness rulings upheld where appellant's proposed construction required imposing limitations not required by the claims or other intrinsic evidence

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2011-1313, -1372 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 19 2012

A licensee seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement bears the burden of proof in the limited circumstance where the license prevents the patentee from asserting a counterclaim for infringement

Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., No. 2011-1219 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 17 2012

When a party took an objectively baseless claim construction position that was not supported by the evidence and there was no showing to negate subjective bad faith, the court found the assertion of infringement of that claim made the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, supporting an award of attorney’s fees apportionable only to that claim

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

Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 2 2010

An applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO

next >