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 192

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


Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation, et al., No. 2013-1165 (Fed. Cir. January 10, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2014

An apparatus claim, drafted in functional terms, directed to a computer is infringed if the accused product is designed in such a way to utilize the


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus to constitute irreparable harm, consumer demand must be directly tied to the allegedly infringing feature


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930


Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2012

The parties in a Hatch-Waxman litigation cross-appealed rulings from a bench trial decision that found no inequitable conduct had occurred during prosecution of the patents, but that held the asserted patents invalid as either lacking sufficient written description or being obvious over prior art


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


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


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


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


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