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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 138

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Company, No. 2010-1402 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 13 2011

Evidence of narrow patent claim scope in specification outweighs claim differentiation arguments in claim construction


General Protecht Group, Inc., G-Techt Global Corporation, Securelectric Corporation, and Warehouse-Lighting.com, LLC, and Central Purchasing, LLC and Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., no. 2011-1115 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 27 2011

A settlement agreement that includes a patent license to certain patents and that contains a forum selection clause covering disputes “relating to or arising out of” the settlement agreement controls the available choice of forum for allegations of infringement of patents that are continuations of the patents covered by the license


In Re Lovin, no. 2010-1499 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 27 2011

The Federal Circuit upheld the BPAI’s interpretation of 37 C.F.R. 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief regarding the separate patentability of dependent claims than a mere recitation of the additional claim elements and a naked assertion that corresponding elements are not found in the prior art


Teva Women's Health, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc., no. 2010-1419 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 27 2011

A patentee may defeat a presumption of prosecution history estoppel by showing that use of the element at issue in the accused infringing product was not foreseeable in the field of the invention at the time of the patentee's narrowing amendment


Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2011

The Federal Circuit held that the evidence of the patentee’s litigation misconduct and objectively-baseless lawsuit filed without reasonable pre-suit investigation properly supported the district court’s finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and warranted Rule 11 sanctions


In re NTP, Inc., No. 2010-1243 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2011

During reexamination, the BPAI’s “broadest reasonable claim construction” was overly broad because it encompassed prior art specifically excluded by the inventors


Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011) ("the Myriad case").
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2011

Federal Circuit panel concludes isolated DNA molecules are patent eligible subject matter because they do not exist in the same form in nature


In re NTP, Inc., No. 2010-1277 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2011

Issues of priority that could have been, but were not, considered during a patent's original examination, are not prohibited from being properly addressed during a reexamination


Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., Nos. 2009-1585, 2010-1011 (Fed. Cir. June 2, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2011

When a preamble in a patent method claim has steps that define the environment in which the patented method takes place or that describe capabilities that a device practicing the method must have, a ruling of infringement is justified even if the alleged infringer did not perform those steps


Claim construction was incorrect because it did not fully differentiate between the singular and plural use of a claim term
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 31 2011

The defendant appealed a final judgment based on a jury verdict that its semiconductor wafer inspection machine infringed two claims of the plaintiff’s patent