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

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

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

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

Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., No. 2009-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2010).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 22 2010

Running-royalty agreements can be relevant to lump-sum damages, but "some basis for comparison must exist in the evidence presented to the jury."

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

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