Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 20

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 3 2010

For obviousness-type double patenting, a claim to a method of using a composition is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent's claim to the identical composition where the earlier patent discloses the identical use; where multiple uses are disclosed in the earlier patent, a later patent impermissibly extends the monopoly if it claims any of the disclosed uses

When a commercial product meets all of the claim limitations, a comparison to that product may support a finding of infringement

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The district court entered a judgment that the accused infringer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product would not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., v. Eisai Co., Ltd.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
October 21 2010

A subsequent ANDA filer has a legally cognizable interest in when the first filer's exclusivity period begins, such that delay in triggering that period qualifies as "injury-in-fact" for the purposes of Article III

The simple inclusion of a novel, yet functionally unrelated limitation, such as one requiring “informing” an individual of the properties of the claim, adds no novelty to that claim for anticipation purposes

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The assignor owned two patents directed to the muscle relaxant drug Metaxalone

A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
August 10 2010

The patentee sued the alleged infringer on a patent involving safety needles for blood collection

Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 16 2010

The defense of prosecution laches requires a finding of prejudice as shown by evidence of intervening rights; for inequitable conduct, a finding of intent to deceive cannot rely solely on the same evidence used to support a finding of materiality

Generally, claim preambles do not limit the claims; but dissenting judge argues for new rule that all preambles should limit claim scope

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 23 2010

The holders of a patent claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation appealed an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement

A patent is sufficiently enabled with respect to utility when the specification discloses information not found in the prior art from which a person of skill in the art would conclude that the claimed invention was useful

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
September 15 2010

The patentee asserted various patents directed to the drug raloxifene hydrochloride used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis

Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 9 2010

If a drug's product label includes instructions that could cause some users to perform the patented method, then courts may find that the manufacturer had an affirmative intent to induce infringement

Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
November 16 2010

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it holds an enforceable title to the patent at the inception of an infringement action, and jurisdictional defects cannot be cured after the complaint has been filed