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

Billups-Rothenberg, Inc. v. Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc. and Bio-Rad Labs, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 20 2011

A patent that claims a genus must disclose either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus


ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, No. 2010-1227 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 22 2011

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of noninfringement, even if the declaratory judgment plaintiff's sole infringement defense is based on state law


In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, Nos. 2009-1451, -1452, -1468, -1469, 2010-1017 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 22 2011

District courts have broad discretion in complex litigation to limit asserted claims as long as plaintiffs have an opportunity to have all unique claims adjudicated


Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, no. 10-1144 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 1 2011

The written description requirement for CIP claims is not satisfied when the original specification failed to demonstrate constructive possession of the invention, and instead merely recited the problem and a claim to all possible solutions


Res judicata does not apply to a claim for patent infringement based on products that were not in existence at the time of an earlier lawsuit between the same parties
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

The patent at issue generally claimed primary and secondary eyeglass frames that could be mounted to one another magnetically


01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., No. 2011-1403 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2012

In patent claims, the singular definite articles “a” and “an” are construed to mean “one or more” unless the claims, specification, or prosecution history clearly suggest otherwise


Grober v. Mako Prods. Inc., nos. 2010-1519, -1527 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2012

When applying the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer to reexaminations, an inventor must make a clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope, and additionally, a complete patent infringement analysis on summary judgment requires a district court to place the accused device alongside each asserted claim


Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

A claim construction must not exclude the preferred embodiments, the possibility of altering an accused device to meet claim limitations does not


Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corp., No. 2012-1183 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A direct purchaser has standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim even if it does not have standing to challenge the validity of the patent


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930