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 258

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


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


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


Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), No. 2011-1467 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 4 2012

An abstract idea cannot be rendered patentable by the mere addition of a computer-aided or field-of-use limitation


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


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


Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc. and Aliphcom, Inc., No. 2012-1355 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2013

The election of an invention in response to an ambiguous restriction requirement from the PTO cannot form the basis for prosecution estoppel or


In re Diabetes Care Inc., No. 2011-1516, -1517 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2012

A limitation for external cables or wires cannot be read into a claim where this element is only disclosed by a statement in the specification addressing deficiencies in the prior art


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930


Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc., No. 2011-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2012

Even if a claim does not include the word “means,” there is only a rebuttable presumption, and not an absolute conclusion, that 35 U.S.C. 112 6 was not intended to govern the claim; a written description limitation should not be read into a claim if it is not used in the claim