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

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc et al v WL Gore & Associates, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2012

The objective reasonableness prong of the Seagate standard for willful infringement is a question of law for a judge and subject to de novo review on appeal


Toshiba Corp v Imation Corp
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2012

The existence of substantial non-infringing uses precludes a finding of contributory infringement but not induced infringement, and the plain meaning of claim terms governs their construction


CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty Ltd., No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2012

Method and system claims covering a computerized trading platform for exchanging financial obligations through a third party intermediary satisfy statutory requirements for patent-eligible subject matter because, considering all limitations, it is not manifestly evident that the claims are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea


Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2011-1366 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2012

A patent for a product, while presumed valid, is rendered invalid if a challenging party proves by clear and convincing evidence that the product in public use or on sale prior to the critical date, one year prior to the patent filing, was embodied by the claimed invention


Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v International Securities Exchange, LLC, No. 2011-1267 (Fed Cir. May 7, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2012

A claim using the word “means” is presumed to be a means-plus-function claim unless the claim includes a specific and definite structure, and repeated derogatory statements in the specification are construed as a disavowal of claim scope


Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., et al., Nos. 11-1355, -1356, -1357, -1358, -1359 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2012

A patentee's proposed claim construction was found to be objectively baseless as a matter of law, justifying Rule 11 sanctions and potentially a fee award


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


In re Shunpei Yamazaki, no. 12-1086 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2012

A patent issued with a recorded terminal disclaimer


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


Edwards Lifesciences AG v Corevalve Inc., Nos. 2011-1215, -1257 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

The verdict that the patent was valid and infringed was upheld, after the Federal Circuit found the verdict to be supported by substantial evidence