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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

Last month at the Federal Circuit - January 2013

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 28 2013

In Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, Nos. 11-1629, -1630, -1631 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2012), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's construction

Last month at the Federal Circuit - April 2012

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2012

In MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., No. 11-1149 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s SJ grant of invalidity of the patents-in-suit owned by GraphOn Corp. (“GraphOn”

Last month at the Federal Circuit - January 2012

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 25 2012

In Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, No. 11-1091 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of invalidity of certain claims of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s (“Teva”) U.S. Patent No. RE39,502 (“the ’502 patent”) based on AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s (“AstraZeneca”) prior invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2

Prosecution history estoppel from distinguishing argument overcomes claim differentiation based on facially narrower dependent claim

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2011

In ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Technology LLC, Nos. 08-1425, -1426 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement and of the trademark and trade dress claims

Misidentifying best mode did not warrant SJ and trademark counterclaims met case or controversy standard

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2010

In Green Edge Enterprises, LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, Nos. 09-1455, -1479 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2010), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in invalidating U.S. Patent No. 5,910,514 (“the ’514 patent”) for failure to describe the best mode and dismissing Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC’s (“Rubber Mulch”) counterclaims for trademark noninfringement and invalidity