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 259

nCube Corp. v. SeaChange Int’l, Inc., No. 2013-1066 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 18 2013

Contempt was not available when the modified product altered the narrow element that had been accused at trial


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


Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes AS., No. 2013-1214 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 19 2014

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment action even if no litigation is pending or threatened when a "substantial risk" of litigation


Awards of costs under 28 U.S.C. 1920 for electronic discovery expenses are limited to the steps necessary to produce the documents in the form demanded by the requesting party
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

In August 2007, the patentee sued for patent infringement. The district court granted summary judgment against the patentee. The accused infringers


The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, Nos. 2012-1642, 2013-1024 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 20 2013

In an equitable conduct assertion, an argument of lack of corroboration of testimony for invalidation of a patent is evaluated for materiality under


Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation, et al., No. 2013-1165 (Fed. Cir. January 10, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2014

An apparatus claim, drafted in functional terms, directed to a computer is infringed if the accused product is designed in such a way to utilize the


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


A Section 337 exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission may not be based on induced infringement where the accused products do not infringe until after importation
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

A complainant accused certain optical scanning devices of infringing its patents. After an investigation, the International Trade Commission issued


In re Applied Materials, Inc., Nos. 2011-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

The patent was obvious because it was simply an optimization of result-effective variables


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