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

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 2011-1576 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

Under Section 102(g), in order to invalidate a patent claim on the ground of prior inventorship, an alleged infringer must prove either that it conceived of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice or that it reduced its invention to practice before the critical date of the patent-at-issue


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


Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), No. 2011-1467 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 4 2012

An abstract idea cannot be rendered patentable by the mere addition of a computer-aided or field-of-use limitation


Aventis Pharma S.A. & Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Hospira, Inc. et al., Nos. 07-CV-0721 & 08-CV-0496 (Fed. Cir. April 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2012

Inequitable conduct finding affirmed on the merits after Therasense, and claim construction and obviousness rulings upheld where appellant's proposed construction required imposing limitations not required by the claims or other intrinsic evidence


In re Diabetes Care Inc., No. 2011-1516, -1517 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2012

A limitation for external cables or wires cannot be read into a claim where this element is only disclosed by a statement in the specification addressing deficiencies in the prior art


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


Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc., No. 2011-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2012

Even if a claim does not include the word “means,” there is only a rebuttable presumption, and not an absolute conclusion, that 35 U.S.C. 112 6 was not intended to govern the claim; a written description limitation should not be read into a claim if it is not used in the claim


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


Revision Military, Inc. & Revision Military, Ltd. v. Balboa Manufacturing Co., No. 2011-1628 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A preliminary injunction enjoining patent infringement involves substantive matters unique to patent law, and therefore, is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit


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