Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 218

Biogen Idec, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, No. 12-1120 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
May 1 2013

Statements made to overcome enablement rejection may limit claims in spite of plain meaning and claim differentiation. The district court adopted a

Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., et al., No. 2012-1247 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent the purpose of the cross-appeal rule. The patentee brought suit for infringement against the alleged

K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., No. 2012-1425, -1446 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

A patentee need not anticipate non-infringement arguments or identify infringing products or devices in its pleading to adequately state a claim for

Checkpoint Sys. Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., No. 2012-1085 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 24 2013

A case was not “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. 285 where the Plaintiff’s expert examined and relied on the defendants’ patents for an infringement

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

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc. et al. No. 11-1218, -1238 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 4 2013

Lost sales in foreign markets are not compensable patent damages; testimony of damages expert was improperly speculative; damages for price erosion

Federal Circuit patent decision summaries, volume 6, issue 7

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
April 3 2013

The patentee applied for two subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 24 in its inter partes reexamination proceeding against the accused

In re Hubbell, Schense, Zisch, & Hall, No. 2011-1547 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 14 2013

Four named inventors from a university appealed the examiner's rejection of their patent application (’509). The patent application had been abandoned

Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., No. 2012-1342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
March 14 2013

The patentee appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the alleged infringer. The patent at issue covered a method for

Function Media, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2012-1020 (Fed. Cir. Feb 13, 2013)

Winston & Strawn LLP
-
USA
-
February 28 2013

Special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations require the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function

next >

Search results

Biogen Idec, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, No. 12-1120 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2013)

Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., et al., No. 2012-1247 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013)

K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., No. 2012-1425, -1446 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2013)

Checkpoint Sys. Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., No. 2012-1085 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2013)

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012-1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc. et al. No. 11-1218, -1238 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2013)

Federal Circuit patent decision summaries, volume 6, issue 7

In re Hubbell, Schense, Zisch, & Hall, No. 2011-1547 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2013)

Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., No. 2012-1342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2013)

Function Media, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2012-1020 (Fed. Cir. Feb 13, 2013)

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea