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 273

McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, No. 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Method claims reciting specific means or improvements to the art are patentable, while method claims directed to abstract results or effects using


Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The


Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2012-1042 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

In order to prove induced infringement, a patentee must prove that an alleged infringer possessed actual knowledge that the induced acts would


Wyeth et al. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 2012-1223, -1224 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

A claim on a molecule is not adequately enabled by a specification with only one working example if one of ordinary skill in the art would be


Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., No. 2011-1223 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

A synergistic effect that is predictable renders a claim obvious. After being sued for infringement, a generic drug manufacturer sought to invalidate


St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., No. 2012-1452 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2013

Consonance requires that the challenged patent, the reference patent, and the restricted patent claim none of the same inventions identified by the


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


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


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


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