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

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


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


International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 22 2009

The ordinary observer test, rather than the point of novelty test, is applied to test anticipation for design patents


The doctrine of res judicata does not punish a plaintiff for exercising the option not to supplement its pleadings with an after-acquired claim, including those relating to inventorship
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

In 2004, Triple Tee initiated its first lawsuit against Nike claiming that Nike had misappropriated Triple Tee’s trade secrets involving golf club technology



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


Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2010

When a party challenges written description support in an interference proceeding, the originating disclosure should be used for claim construction; whereas when a claim's validity is challenged in an interference proceeding, the claim must be interpreted in light of the specification in which it appears


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


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


Bollywood different from Hollywood at Trademark Office
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2010

Even if the mark THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER has acquired sufficient distinctiveness to be granted trademark registration by the US Trademark Office, that does not support an application to register THE BOLLYWOOD REPORTER, since the two are not legally equivalent