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 205

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


Supreme Court Reverses Broad Interpretation Of Residence For Venue In Patent Cases
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 23 2017

In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday limited the venues in which patent defendants may be hauled into court. In TC


Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

Royalties for SEPs cannot include the value of standarization regardless of whether the patentee committed to licensing subject to RAND terms


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


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


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


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