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

Epos Technologies Ltd. et al. v. Pegasus Technologies Ltd. et al., Case No. 2013-1330 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2014).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2014

Summary judgment of noninfringement was improper because of the district court's erroneous claim constructions. The patentee owns six patents

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

“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

Recent decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board provide important clues to parties considering settlement of post-issuance trial proceedings.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2014

While the predecessor to the current statutory scheme for inter partes challenges to the validity of patents before the United States Patent and

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

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

3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., No. 2011-1339 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 11 2012

The patentee’s identification of products that “may infringe” its patent, suggestion that licenses are available, and indication that it will provide claim charts may create a justiciable controversy sufficient to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction

Where a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity is dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party, the party filing the complaint may file a later petition for inter partes review.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2014

In enacting the statutes related to inter partes review, Congress sought to preclude a party from selecting two venues for raising simultaneous

Quandaries over the standard for instituting inter partes review, PTAB fact-finding in institution decisions, and claim construction strategies

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

On October 15, 2013, Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC sued the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedures Act for