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 327

“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

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

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

Align Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 2013-1240, -1363 (July 18, 2014)

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

International Trade Commission must follow its own regulations, which provide that only an "Initial Determination," not an "Order," is subject to

Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc. and Aliphcom, Inc., No. 2012-1355 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2013).

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

The election of an invention in response to an ambiguous restriction requirement from the PTO cannot form the basis for prosecution estoppel or

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

PTAB places restrictions on the use of multi-party IPR petitions by defining all real parties-in-interest as a single “party” for post issuance trials.

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

Parties considering pooling resources to file a single petition for post-issuance trial should take note of a recent decision by the Patent Trial and

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

Raymond E. Stauffer v. Brooks brothers Group, Inc., No. 2013-1180 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014)

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

The changes to the false marking statute under the America Invents Act are retroactive; any existing or future plaintiff must be a party that has

Will ex parte reexamination become a tool for patent owners as a hedge against inter partes review?

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

As the Board continues to develop its jurisprudence related to the amendment of patent claims in inter partes review, the Board has repeatedly