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

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

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

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

“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

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC, no. 2011-1173, -1200 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 15 2012

In order for a means-plus-function claim to be interpreted to encompass a broader generic structure, even if the generic structure is well-known in the art, the generic structure must appear in the patent specification and be clearly linked to the claimed function

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