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 136

Halo Creative & Design v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 18 2016

The plaintiff, a Hong Kong corporation, sued the defendant, a Canadian corporation, in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of


DMCA "safe harbor" protection upheld for YouTube notwithstanding generalized knowledge of infringement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 29 2010

A United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently found that YouTube was entitled to "safe harbor" protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against all of Viacom's direct and secondary copyright infringement claims


Federal courts have exclusive federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims involving the prosecution of U.S. patent applications
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

A patent applicant filed suit against her patent prosecution attorney for negligently failing to file applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (which provides a unified procedure for filing a single patent application in multiple countries) and for various acts of negligence relating to the preparation and filing of U.S. patent applications


Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 23 2010

Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier-filed application date requires that the missing descriptive matter must be present in the original application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure


A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

Following a five-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict that defendant willfully infringed claims of a patent relating to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, but that certain dependent claims were obvious


Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design



Advertising Law Snapshots, Volume 1, Issue 11
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2016

The iTunes terms of service state in part: In no case shall Apple, its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents, contractors, or licensors


Photographer and LavAzza coffee settle copyright infringement lawsuit
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 21 2010

In September 2009, Paolo Pizzetti sued Annie Leibovitz and LavAzza coffee for copyright infringement alleging that Leibovitz and LavAzza used one of Pizzetti's photographs in the 2009 LavAzza calendar without permission


Power-One, Inc., v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

The fact that a claim is defined using a relative term (eg "near") instead of a precise numerical measurement does not render the claim incapable of providing meaningful guidance if the claim language, taken in context of the entire patent, provides a sufficiently reasonable meaning to one skilled in the art