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

Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency

The doctrine of res judicata does not punish a plaintiff for exercising the option not to supplement its pleadings with an after-acquired claim, including those relating to inventorship

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

In 2004, Triple Tee initiated its first lawsuit against Nike claiming that Nike had misappropriated Triple Tee’s trade secrets involving golf club technology

The appearance in the complaint of an alternative, non-patent theory with respect to each claim compels the conclusion that the claims do not "arise under" patent law

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

The parties had settled a previous patent infringement dispute by entering into a license agreement

Power-One, Inc., v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 6 2010

The fact that a claim is defined using a relative term (eg "near") instead of a precise numerical measurement does not render the claim incapable of providing meaningful guidance if the claim language, taken in context of the entire patent, provides a sufficiently reasonable meaning to one skilled in the art

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

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc

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

The scope of a design patent claim must be construed to identify the ornamental and functional aspects of the design, and applying the ordinary observer test, the trier of fact must determine whether the deception that arises is a result of the similarities in the overall design, not of similarities in ornamental features in isolation

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

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