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 271

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

Royalties for SEPs cannot include the value of standarization regardless of whether the patentee committed to licensing subject to RAND terms


Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 2012-1228 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 26 2012

Defendants’ burden of proof for invalidity is not raised because a reference was previously before the PTO; statements made during prosecution to rebut enablement rejections under Section 112 may be used as proof of motivation to combine references under Section 103


Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Even if a structure corresponding to a means plus function claim is known in the prior art, it must still be disclosed in the patent’s specification in order to adequately claim the function


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


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


The Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., No. 2012-1578 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 26, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 2 2013

Very simple expert declaration was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; limiting summary judgment


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


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 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


Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n & Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 2012-1445, -1535 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 11 2013

To meet Section 337’s domestic-industry requirement, the moving party must show a product practicing the protected patent