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

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


Regents of the University of Minnesota v. ADA Medical Corp., No. 2012-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2013

An earlier prosecution disclaimer applies to a later application so long as the two have the same or closely related claim limitation language


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


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


Forrester Envtl. Servs., Inc., v. Wheelabator Techs., Inc., No. 2012-1686 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

State law tortious interference and trade secret misappropriation claims did not raise a "substantial question of federal patent law" authorizing


Motiva, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2012-1252 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

In an ITC proceeding, previous litigation of a patent by the complainant does not constitute a substantial investment in licensing to satisfy the


Dey, L.P. et al. v. Sunovion Pharm., Inc., No. 2012-1428 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Clinical drug trials operating under standard confidentiality procedures do not constitute a third-party public use under pre-America Invents Act


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


Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., no. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2011

A description in prose of an algorithm is sufficiently definite to identify the corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation under 112 6, and there is no infringement if a device is merely capable of being modified to perform the patented function


Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, no. 2011-1285 (Feb. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2012

Multiple pre-critical date claims, operating together, can provide the foundation necessary for post-critical date claims to be held timely under 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1