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

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

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

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

Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 10 2010

District courts performing reasonable royalty calculations must exercise vigilance when considering past licenses to technologies other than the patent in suit

Where an ambiguous disclosure otherwise might have sufficed to support an earlier priority date, contrary arguments made to persuade an examiner to allow the application may preclude the priority claim

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 11 2010

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the accused infringer, holding that a patent issuing on a continuation-in-part application related to collapsible storage containers was not entitled to an earlier filing date because material claimed had been disclaimed during prosecution of the priority patent by patentee’s attorney

Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. et al. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC et al., no. 2009-1357 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2010).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2010

For the purposes of determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for summary judgment, a court should disregard affidavits that are directly contradicted by deposition testimony or that are made without personal knowledge in order to create a genuine issue of material fact

Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., No. 09-1102 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2010)

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

Inequitable conduct by inventors or patent attorneys causes a patent to be unenforceable, even as to an innocent co-inventor

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

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