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

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 2009-1423
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Though a district court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, the court must provide its reasoning somewhere in the record when its underlying holdings would otherwise be ambiguous or unascertainable


Court finds Starbucks coffee diluted by competitor
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 7 2010

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently partially overruled a lower court and held that Wolf Borough Coffee, Inc. dba Black Bear Micro Roastery's "Charbuck's Blend" and "Mister Charbucks" coffee brands diluted Starbucks' famous "Starbucks" mark in violation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA


REMAX International wins trademark infringement suit
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 13 2009

REMAX International, Inc. brought a trademark infringement suit against Trend Setter Realty, LLC, (“Trend Setter”) for use of “red-over-white-over-blue horizontal bar design” in connection with real estate services


Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2009

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


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


Malpractice claims against patent attorneys necessarily rely on federal law because the fiduciary duties owed by patent counsel are governed by federal statutes and the manual of patent examination procedure
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The initial controversy before the district court concerned fifteen claims made by the plaintiff-inventorunder a combination of federal and state lawagainst his former patent counsel and employer, alleging the improper listing of a co-inventor on the patent application and improper legal representation of that individual due to the conflicting interests of the plaintiff


The fact that a patentee used equivocal language when communicating with an accused infringer will not prevent a court from applying equitable estoppel
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The district court granted the accused infringer’s motion for dismissal on equitable estoppel grounds based on the patentee’s three years of silence after contacting the accused infringer concerning infringement


Oral testimony can be used to prove the scope of a printed publication as an anticipating reference
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

A jury found the patent infringed and valid


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