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 270

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


TecSec, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al., No. 2012-1415 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 11 2013

A prior Federal Circuit summary affirmance under Rule 36, which could have been based on either of two independent grounds, cannot be used by other


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


Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., No. 2011-1561, -1562 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Obviousness-type double patenting analysis should focus on the entire claims, not just the differences between the two claims; disclosure of later-claimed use in an earlier patent is only invalidating if the compounds in the two patents are identical


Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 2013-1072 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 23 2013

The unrestricted sale of a patented apparatus exhausts patent protection on the methods of using the apparatus


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


Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, no. 2009-1242 (Fed Cir. Feb. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2012

An abstract idea cannot become a patentable process by virtue of incidental connections to the physical world or the addition of a computer limitation that does not play a significant role in the performance of the claimed method


Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Product Company, 2011-1291, 2012-1046, -1057, -1087, -1088 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Patentee's profit in the face of infringement does not prevent permanent injunction; "25 rule of thumb" and profit-margin ceilings for royalties


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