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

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


Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2010-1025 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

A patent claim term should be defined by implication only if the specification manifests a clear intent to limit the term by using it in a manner consistent with only one single meaning


Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Comms. Int’l, Inc., No. 2010-1110, -1131 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

When considering infringement of system claims, the relevant definition of "use" under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) is whether the accused infringer puts the invention into service as a whole and obtains a benefit from it; physical or direct control over each element of the system is not required


Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., No. 2011-1219 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 17 2012

When a party took an objectively baseless claim construction position that was not supported by the evidence and there was no showing to negate subjective bad faith, the court found the assertion of infringement of that claim made the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, supporting an award of attorney’s fees apportionable only to that claim


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


Woods v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., No. 2010-1478 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Section 282’s requirement that prior art be disclosed at least 30 days before trial does not eliminate other disclosure requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; a patentee’s failure to explicitly challenge that the prior art contains a limitation is not a concession that the prior art includes that limitation


Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2011-1392 (Fed. Cir. September 4, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Directed verdict of non-infringement of several patents was appropriate where: 1) patentee failed to demonstrate element-by-element equivalence for the patents asserted under DOE infringement, and 2) patentee had put forth no evidence of any instance of direct infringement of the patent asserted under induced infringement


In re Rambus, No. 2011-1247 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Claim construction should not be limited by the goal of the patent unless the goal could not be achieved with alternative construction; terms should be construed with an eye toward use of the same term in related patents


Amkor Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2010-1550 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

When a possible range of conception dates are provided for prior art under section 102(g)(2), the art is not automatically given the latest possible date, but alleged infringers must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior art was conceived in the United States before the patented invention


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