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 62

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

A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim

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

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 2009-1403, -1491 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2010)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2010

A method claim is directly infringed only if each step of the claimed method is performed

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

Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd

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

In the construction of a means-plus-function claim element under 35 USC 112, 6, the concept of incorporation by reference is insufficient to include a structure in a prior art reference as a corresponding structure

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

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

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

A patentee “cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification” required to provide an adequate enabling disclosure

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

The patent-in-suit was directed to an extended release formulation of methylphenidate (“MPH”) for the treatment of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”

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