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 194

St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., No. 2012-1452 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2013

Consonance requires that the challenged patent, the reference patent, and the restricted patent claim none of the same inventions identified by the


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


Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 2012-1228 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 26 2012

Defendants’ burden of proof for invalidity is not raised because a reference was previously before the PTO; statements made during prosecution to rebut enablement rejections under Section 112 may be used as proof of motivation to combine references under Section 103


SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histrogen Inc., No. 2012-1560 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

Patent prosecution history and specification were held to implicitly redefine the terms of a claim


University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V., Case No. 2012-1540, -1541, -1661 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over a suit to correct inventorship between a State University and officials from another State


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


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


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


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