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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court extends Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. to computer patents

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

The Supreme Court held that patent claims that are directed towards abstract ideas will not be patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 unless the claim

Intervening rights may be granted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 307(b) & 316(b) only when a claim is added or the language of a claim is formally amended during reexamination. Effective changes to the scope of an unamended claim do not meet this standard

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 10 2012

The patentee alleged infringement of the patent for biocompatible compositions of naturally occurring polysaccharide polymer