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

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


3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., No. 2011-1339 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2012

The patentee’s identification of products that “may infringe” its patent, suggestion that licenses are available, and indication that it will provide claim charts may create a justiciable controversy sufficient to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction


In re Mouttet, No. 2011-1451 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 18 2012

Where the relevant factual inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the examiner of prior art as “primary” and “secondary” is merely a matter of presentation with no legal significance, and in considering whether a prior art reference “teaches away” from a claimed invention in determining obviousness, a known system does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use


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


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


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 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


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