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 292

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., Nos. 2013-1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2014).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 9 2014

A license that expressly covers only particular patents may impliedly cover only continuations of those patents. A patentee brought an action for

MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, No. 2013-1433 (Fed. Cir. April 2, 2014).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 9 2014

The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that both patents (one for football jerseys and one for baseball jerseys) were invalid as obvious. The patentee

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs, Inc., 2012-1340, -1341 (Fed. Cir. March 18, 2014).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 2 2014

Non-infringement upheld on ANDA claim where patentee relied only on evidence related to a different formulation; invalidity on enablement and written

Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes AS., No. 2013-1214 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2014).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 19 2014

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment action even if no litigation is pending or threatened when a "substantial risk" of litigation

Indemnification of customers or assisting in their defense may not be enough to bar indemnitor from filing petition for inter partes review absent control over the earlier litigation.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

The PTAB recently denied a request for discovery into the indemnification activities of a Petitioner in an IPR where a district court verdict had

Patent Trial and Appeal Board provides early guidance on motions to exclude evidence during post-issuance patent trials.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") has recently decided a number of motions to exclude evidence under 37 C.F.R. 42.64. Based on these

Have petitions for post-issuance trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board plateaued?

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

Last time I looked at the number of petitions for post-issue trials filed at the Patent Trial And Appeal Board ("PTAB" or the Board) (i.e., petitions

Empirical analysis of institution decisions in inter partes review through March 7, 2014.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

As of March 7, 2014, the Board has issued a total of 479 institution decisions under 37 C.F.R. 42.108 in IPR proceedings. Of those decisions

Where a Petitioner’s indemnification obligation did not arise until after service of a complaint, a petition for inter partes review will not be denied under 35 U.S.C. 315(b).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

In Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper 31 (Jan. 22, 2014), the PTAB concluded that a Petitioner for IPR was

Patent Trial and Appeal Board permits discovery into communications between declarants related to the prior art involved in the trial.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

Parties retaining multiple declarants in connection with a post-issuance trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") should review a