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

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


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


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930


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


Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

A claim construction must not exclude the preferred embodiments, the possibility of altering an accused device to meet claim limitations does not


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


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