Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 206

Versata Software, Inc. v. SAPAmerica, Inc., No. 2012-1029, -1049 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2013).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 16 2013

The accused product infringed the patent, and the patentee was entitled to lost profits damages and reasonable royalties. The two patents relate to

Baron Servs. , Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations LLC, No. 2012-1285, -1443 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2013).

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 16 2013

A party to a patent suit may delay the adjudication of a summary judgment motion during discovery if it adequately explains how certain "additional

Biogen Idec, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, No. 12-1120 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 1 2013

Statements made to overcome enablement rejection may limit claims in spite of plain meaning and claim differentiation. The district court adopted a

Checkpoint Sys. Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., No. 2012-1085 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

A case was not “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. 285 where the Plaintiff’s expert examined and relied on the defendants’ patents for an infringement

K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., No. 2012-1425, -1446 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

A patentee need not anticipate non-infringement arguments or identify infringing products or devices in its pleading to adequately state a claim for

Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., et al., No. 2012-1247 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent the purpose of the cross-appeal rule. The patentee brought suit for infringement against the alleged

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012-1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

The assertion of different claims in a subsequent suitwhen those claims all contain a limitation that has already been construed, in the same context

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc. et al. No. 11-1218, -1238 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 4 2013

Lost sales in foreign markets are not compensable patent damages; testimony of damages expert was improperly speculative; damages for price erosion

Federal Circuit patent decision summaries, volume 6, issue 7

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 3 2013

The patentee applied for two subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 24 in its inter partes reexamination proceeding against the accused

In re Hubbell, Schense, Zisch, & Hall, No. 2011-1547 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 14 2013

Four named inventors from a university appealed the examiner's rejection of their patent application (’509). The patent application had been abandoned

next >