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

Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes AS., No. 2013-1214 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 19 2014

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment action even if no litigation is pending or threatened when a "substantial risk" of litigation


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


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


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


Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc et al v WL Gore & Associates, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2012

The objective reasonableness prong of the Seagate standard for willful infringement is a question of law for a judge and subject to de novo review on appeal


Toshiba Corp v Imation Corp
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2012

The existence of substantial non-infringing uses precludes a finding of contributory infringement but not induced infringement, and the plain meaning of claim terms governs their construction


CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty Ltd., No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2012

Method and system claims covering a computerized trading platform for exchanging financial obligations through a third party intermediary satisfy statutory requirements for patent-eligible subject matter because, considering all limitations, it is not manifestly evident that the claims are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea


Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2011-1366 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2012

A patent for a product, while presumed valid, is rendered invalid if a challenging party proves by clear and convincing evidence that the product in public use or on sale prior to the critical date, one year prior to the patent filing, was embodied by the claimed invention