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 329

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

CBM review cannot raise prior art under pre-AIA section 102(e)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 19 2013

One key difference between IPR and CBM review is the availability of prior art. Certain prior arg cannot be raised in a CBM review. In what has

PTAB makes clear that observations on cross-examination are limited to reply declarants

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 14 2013

In Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc., IPR2013-00057, Paper 43 (Nov. 1, 2013), counsel for the Patent Owner initiated a conference call with the

“Substantial new question” vs. “reasonable likelihood”: has the difference in legal standard made a difference in practice?

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 19 2013

Under the America Invents Act ("AIA"), what was once the standard used by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to determine whether to institute

PTAB exercises its discretion to deny second petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) and 325(d) where PTAB had already instituted trial over same patent, between same parties, over similar prior art references

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2013

The PTAB may have shed some light on how it will address multiple petitions attacking the same claims of the same patent by the same petitioner

In re Hugh Edward Montgomery, John Francis Martin, and Jorge Daniel Erusalimsky, No. 2011-1376 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2012

Prior art describing an unexecuted process or protocol may inherently anticipate claims when the result at issue inevitably flows from its disclosures

Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation, et al., No. 2013-1165 (Fed. Cir. January 10, 2014).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2014

An apparatus claim, drafted in functional terms, directed to a computer is infringed if the accused product is designed in such a way to utilize the

Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. Guidetech, LLC, No. 2012-1018 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2013

The doctrine of equivalents does not apply where its application would vitiate one or more claim limitations of the patentee's patent. Even so, the

PTAB explains circumstances where cross-examination of declarant may be limited to grounds on which trial is instituted

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2013

The PTAB recently clarified the instances in which it might consider a motion to limit the cross-examination of a declarant and when it might not

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2013-1567 (July 7, 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2014

Where some, but not all, findings of infringement are reversed but no remand is sought, and a general damage award is consistent with the mandate