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

In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference


I4I Ltd. Partnership & Infrastructures For Info. Inc., v. Microsoft Corp
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

The test for willfulness is distinct and separate from the factors guiding a district court's discretion regarding whether and by how much to enhance damages in light of a willfulness finding


Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v Barr Laboratories, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2010

In a patent infringement suit involving claims directed to the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, the patent at issue was the third in a chain of related divisional patents


Licenses do not necessarily run concurrently with agreements: later-formed subsidiaries of a licensee are included within the original vesting of rights if so provided by the agreement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 10 2009

In a cross-license agreement, each party granted two licenses to the other party and its subsidiaries


Plaintiff bore the burden of proving ownership of the patents pursuant to a contractual agreement and failed to do so; the district court correctly dismissed the suit without prejudice
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2009

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs (Tycos) patent infringement suit without prejudice because Tyco failed to prove ownership of the asserted patents and thus lacked standing to sue


ISPs found liable for contributory trademark and copyright infringement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2009

A unanimous jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that two ISPs committed contributory trademark infringement and copyright infringement against Louis Vuitton Malettier S.A. for failing to block Web sites offering counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise


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


Whirlpool sued by artist over designs for kitchenaid mixers
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 10 2013

Plaintiff Nicole Dinardo designs and sells hand painted KitchenAid Mixers. Whirlpool, which owns KitchenAid, allegedly approached Dinardo regarding


Michael Jordan secures victory in 7th Circuit right of publicity ruling
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 3 2014

On February 19, 2014, the 7th Circuit held that Jewel Foods Store, Inc.'s use of Michael Jordan's name and number in a congratulatory ad that also


Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company, No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Leaving expired patent number markings on products after the patents have expired, even knowingly, does not show a purpose of deceiving the public