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 191

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


Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., et al., Nos. 11-1355, -1356, -1357, -1358, -1359 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2012

A patentee's proposed claim construction was found to be objectively baseless as a matter of law, justifying Rule 11 sanctions and potentially a fee award


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


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


Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2012-1042 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

In order to prove induced infringement, a patentee must prove that an alleged infringer possessed actual knowledge that the induced acts would


Wyeth et al. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 2012-1223, -1224 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

A claim on a molecule is not adequately enabled by a specification with only one working example if one of ordinary skill in the art would be


Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., No. 2011-1223 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

A synergistic effect that is predictable renders a claim obvious. After being sued for infringement, a generic drug manufacturer sought to invalidate


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


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