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

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

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp

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

Claims are not indefinite if the intrinsic evidence provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claims, even if some experimentation is required

Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 19 2010

Under 35 U.S.C. 154(b), a patentee is entitled to patent term adjustments that combine the period of delay caused by the failure of the PTO in meeting certain examination deadlines, and by the period of delay caused by the PTO's failure to issue a patent within three years after the actual filing date

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

The standard to evaluate the sufficiency of incorporation by reference language in the patent specification is whether the identity of the incorporated reference is clear to a reasonable examiner in light of the documents presented

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

A patent applicant involved in a patent interference proceeding appealed a finding by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) that the claims of its present ‘880 application were unpatentable for lack of written description

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

The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark

Trading Technologies, Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 2008-1392, -1393, -1422 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2010)

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

For the "all elements" rule of the doctrine of equivalents, claim vitiation applies when there is a clear, substantial difference or a difference in kind, as opposed to a subtle difference in degree

Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corporation, et. al, 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. March 4, 2010)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2010

Following an order granting a permanent injunction, an infringer may still be held in contempt of that order despite good faith efforts to achieve a non-infringing design-around; and even if the infringer achieves a non-infringing design-around, it may still be held in contempt for failure to comply with the clear terms of the order

Federal courts have exclusive federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims involving the prosecution of U.S. patent applications

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2010

A patent applicant filed suit against her patent prosecution attorney for negligently failing to file applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (which provides a unified procedure for filing a single patent application in multiple countries) and for various acts of negligence relating to the preparation and filing of U.S. patent applications