Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 >