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

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

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

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

“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

St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., No. 2012-1452 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2013

Consonance requires that the challenged patent, the reference patent, and the restricted patent claim none of the same inventions identified by the

Cheese Systems Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., No. 2012-1463, -1501 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2013).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2013

Summary judgment on non-obviousness may be affirmed even if the district court does not expressly consider objective considerations of non-obviousness

The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu AS

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 4 2010

Because the claims, specification, prosecution history, and prior art all suggested a uniform meaning of the claim term, and because no "special definition" was provided, the patentee had not acted as his own lexicographer

Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2011

Summary judgment of non-obviousness was rejected where the district court failed to give appropriate weight to analogous prior art and improperly relied on a "layperson" level of ordinary skill in the art

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (“PPC”) v. International Trade Commission, No. 2010-1536 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2011).

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 19 2011

The expenses incurred in patent litigation do not automatically qualify as a substantial investment in licensing to satisfy the “domestic industry” requirement of 19 U.S.C. 337 even if that litigation culminates in a patent license