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

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


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


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


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


Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 2013-1002 (Fed. Cir. September 3, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 11 2013

Proposed broad functional construction of “monooxygenase” rejected where it was contrary to plain scientific meaning and would have raised serious


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


In re Applied Materials, Inc., Nos. 2011-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

The patent was obvious because it was simply an optimization of result-effective variables


Woods v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., No. 2010-1478 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Section 282’s requirement that prior art be disclosed at least 30 days before trial does not eliminate other disclosure requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; a patentee’s failure to explicitly challenge that the prior art contains a limitation is not a concession that the prior art includes that limitation


Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2011-1392 (Fed. Cir. September 4, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Directed verdict of non-infringement of several patents was appropriate where: 1) patentee failed to demonstrate element-by-element equivalence for the patents asserted under DOE infringement, and 2) patentee had put forth no evidence of any instance of direct infringement of the patent asserted under induced infringement