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 193

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corp., No. 2012-1183 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A direct purchaser has standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim even if it does not have standing to challenge the validity of the patent


Revision Military, Inc. & Revision Military, Ltd. v. Balboa Manufacturing Co., No. 2011-1628 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A preliminary injunction enjoining patent infringement involves substantive matters unique to patent law, and therefore, is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit


Edwards Lifesciences AG v Corevalve Inc., Nos. 2011-1215, -1257 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

The verdict that the patent was valid and infringed was upheld, after the Federal Circuit found the verdict to be supported by substantial evidence


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


Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2010

The defense of prosecution laches requires a finding of prejudice as shown by evidence of intervening rights; for inequitable conduct, a finding of intent to deceive cannot rely solely on the same evidence used to support a finding of materiality


A123 Systems, Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2010

An exclusive licensee in the field of use lacks standing to sue without joining the patent owner


Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., No. 2009-1428, -1430, -1453 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2010

Any person has standing to pursue an action under Section 292 because a violation of that statute inherently constitutes an injury to the United States and, consequently, to the government's assignee


Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady Technology LLC, No. 08-1425 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2010

The patentee, having argued limits to its claims during prosecution in order to distinguish cited prior art, may not later argue that those limitations do not apply to the claims


American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2009-1503, -1567 (Fed. Cir. Fune 27, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 6 2011

Where nondisclosed prior art is insufficient to invalidate a patent by clear and convincing evidence, a question remains as to whether it is material under Therasense for inequitable conduct purposes if the art may have blocked issuance of one or more of the claims under the PTO’s preponderance of evidence standard and assuming the broadest possible construction of the claims


Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc., v. Photoscribe Tech., Inc., No. 2009-1251 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 28 2010

Intent to deceive for inequitable conduct cannot be established by rejecting a prosecuting attorney's explanation based on an erroneous understanding of the law