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

Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Product Company, 2011-1291, 2012-1046, -1057, -1087, -1088 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Patentee's profit in the face of infringement does not prevent permanent injunction; "25 rule of thumb" and profit-margin ceilings for royalties


Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., No. 2011-1561, -1562 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Obviousness-type double patenting analysis should focus on the entire claims, not just the differences between the two claims; disclosure of later-claimed use in an earlier patent is only invalidating if the compounds in the two patents are identical


Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor, LLC, No. 2011-1514 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Rule against recapture during reissue proceedings can apply where, during reissue prosecution, process claim limitations are removed from originally issued product-by-process claims and the process imparts novel structural characteristics to the claimed product


Arkema Inc., et. Al., v. Honeywell International, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment where the patentee's conduct puts it in the position of pursuing arguably illegal conduct or


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


Revision Military, Inc. & Revision Military, Ltd. v. Balboa Manufacturing Co., No. 2011-1628 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A preliminary injunction enjoining patent infringement involves substantive matters unique to patent law, and therefore, is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit


Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The


Evidentiary errors may warrant a new trial when they prevent a party from presenting its desired defenses
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

The patentee alleged infringement of two method patents for frothing milk


DNA that has been “isolated” from a host genome is patentable subject matter under 101 even where the nucleotide sequence is identical to the one found in nature
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Myriad appeals from the district court’s decision granting summary judgment that the claims at issue are drawn to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101


Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc., No. 2011-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2012

Even if a claim does not include the word “means,” there is only a rebuttable presumption, and not an absolute conclusion, that 35 U.S.C. 112 6 was not intended to govern the claim; a written description limitation should not be read into a claim if it is not used in the claim