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

Billups-Rothenberg, Inc. v. Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc. and Bio-Rad Labs, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 20 2011

A patent that claims a genus must disclose either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus


Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2010

If an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then, for purposes of infringement, comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product


The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu AS
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 4 2010

Because the claims, specification, prosecution history, and prior art all suggested a uniform meaning of the claim term, and because no "special definition" was provided, the patentee had not acted as his own lexicographer


A Section 337 exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission may not be based on induced infringement where the accused products do not infringe until after importation
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

A complainant accused certain optical scanning devices of infringing its patents. After an investigation, the International Trade Commission issued


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


ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, No. 2010-1227 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 22 2011

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of noninfringement, even if the declaratory judgment plaintiff's sole infringement defense is based on state law


In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, Nos. 2009-1451, -1452, -1468, -1469, 2010-1017 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 22 2011

District courts have broad discretion in complex litigation to limit asserted claims as long as plaintiffs have an opportunity to have all unique claims adjudicated


Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, no. 10-1144 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 1 2011

The written description requirement for CIP claims is not satisfied when the original specification failed to demonstrate constructive possession of the invention, and instead merely recited the problem and a claim to all possible solutions


Res judicata does not apply to a claim for patent infringement based on products that were not in existence at the time of an earlier lawsuit between the same parties
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

The patent at issue generally claimed primary and secondary eyeglass frames that could be mounted to one another magnetically


01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., No. 2011-1403 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2012

In patent claims, the singular definite articles “a” and “an” are construed to mean “one or more” unless the claims, specification, or prosecution history clearly suggest otherwise