Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

The secondary considerations of non-obviousness of commercial success, failure of others, and industry praise must be linked to the claimed invention, not pre-existing market share

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 31 2010

Patentee sued for infringement of a patent for a “bundle breaker” used for breaking multiple, uneven bundles of corrugated board

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., v. Eisai Co., Ltd.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 21 2010

A subsequent ANDA filer has a legally cognizable interest in when the first filer's exclusivity period begins, such that delay in triggering that period qualifies as "injury-in-fact" for the purposes of Article III

Two different terms may be construed to share a definition where the terms are used interchangeably; in a means-plus-function claim, the relevant inquiry is not where in the claim a term falls, but whether the term is “purely functional”

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 24 2010

The patentee asserted one claim from each of two patents directed to automated biopsy instruments

Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 2007-1386 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2010)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 7 2010

A patentee does not misuse his patent when he offers to license a patent while inducing a third party not to license its separate patent covering competing technology

In an obviousness analysis, the ultimate inference as to the existence of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of “common sense” appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 3 2010

A jury found that an accused infringer failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that claims of three patents covering barbell-shaped hitch pin locks that secure trailers to cars would have been obvious

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 3 2010

For obviousness-type double patenting, a claim to a method of using a composition is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent's claim to the identical composition where the earlier patent discloses the identical use; where multiple uses are disclosed in the earlier patent, a later patent impermissibly extends the monopoly if it claims any of the disclosed uses

When a commercial product meets all of the claim limitations, a comparison to that product may support a finding of infringement

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The district court entered a judgment that the accused infringer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product would not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit

Claim construction arguments were waived when new constructions were argued only after the claims had been construed and the jury returned a verdict

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The patents-in-suit were directed at security with respect to the use of global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine the physical location of mobile devices, such as cellular phones

The simple inclusion of a novel, yet functionally unrelated limitation, such as one requiring “informing” an individual of the properties of the claim, adds no novelty to that claim for anticipation purposes

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The assignor owned two patents directed to the muscle relaxant drug Metaxalone

A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The patentee sued the alleged infringer on a patent involving safety needles for blood collection