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

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


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


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


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


Pregis Corp. v. Kapos, No. 2010-1492, 1532 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2012

A potential infringer cannot sue the Patent Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedure Act to attack the validity of an issued patent


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


American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2009-1503, -1567 (Fed. Cir. Fune 27, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 6 2011

Where nondisclosed prior art is insufficient to invalidate a patent by clear and convincing evidence, a question remains as to whether it is material under Therasense for inequitable conduct purposes if the art may have blocked issuance of one or more of the claims under the PTO’s preponderance of evidence standard and assuming the broadest possible construction of the claims


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


OSRAM SYLVANIA, Inc. v. American Induction Techs., Inc., No. 2012-1091 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2012

A grant of summary judgment, holding that patent claims were invalid as anticipated and obvious over prior art, was overturned because the existence of


Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex, No. 2011-1048 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2011

Prejudgment interest is a form of compensatory damages; therefore, a settlement agreement limiting the amount of “actual damages” precludes an additional award of interest where not explicitly provided for