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 257

SEB, S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 10 2010

Without fully defining the territorial limits of infringement, no fundamental error occurred in finding products shipped to the United States and intended for the United States market as infringing


Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2010

To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, all of the elements of the claim arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim


Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency


Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

In the construction of a means-plus-function claim element under 35 USC 112, 6, the concept of incorporation by reference is insufficient to include a structure in a prior art reference as a corresponding structure


Power-One, Inc., v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

The fact that a claim is defined using a relative term (eg "near") instead of a precise numerical measurement does not render the claim incapable of providing meaningful guidance if the claim language, taken in context of the entire patent, provides a sufficiently reasonable meaning to one skilled in the art


Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

Claims are not indefinite if the intrinsic evidence provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claims, even if some experimentation is required


Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2010

When a party challenges written description support in an interference proceeding, the originating disclosure should be used for claim construction; whereas when a claim's validity is challenged in an interference proceeding, the claim must be interpreted in light of the specification in which it appears


Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 19 2010

Under 35 U.S.C. 154(b), a patentee is entitled to patent term adjustments that combine the period of delay caused by the failure of the PTO in meeting certain examination deadlines, and by the period of delay caused by the PTO's failure to issue a patent within three years after the actual filing date


Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 10 2010

District courts performing reasonable royalty calculations must exercise vigilance when considering past licenses to technologies other than the patent in suit


The context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

The patentee sued the accused infringer on a patent related to automatically calling an elevator and taking a passenger to a specific location based on passenger specific information