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 87

In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin


For purposes of determining patent term extension under 35 U.S.C 156, an enantiomer has consistently been recognized, by the FDA and the PTO, as a different “drug product” from its racemate
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patent-in-suit covered an antimicrobial compound having the common name levofloxacin, and is the levorotatory enantiomer of the racemate ofloxacin, which is a known antimicrobial product




A courts inherent power to award attorney's fees should be reserved for cases in which the conduct of the party or an attorney is egregious and no other basis for sanctions exists
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

Following a jurys finding of infringement, the district court granted defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on non-infringement and granted defendants' petition seeking attorneys fees and expenses


A patentee does not surrender access to equivalency arguments for amendments involving “merely tangential” limitations that were not grounds for prosecution rejection
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

The patentee sued four entitiesa South Korean corporation and its predecessor, along with a U.S. subsidiary and its predecessorfor infringement of six patents related to VCR technology


In the absence of clear and unambiguous language to the contrary, general claim release language is insufficient to infer an intent to release all claims of patent invalidity and unenforceability
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

In previous litigation for breach of contract, the parties reached a settlement agreement that granted the current plaintiff an option to acquire a nonexclusive license to the patent-in-suit. After the time to exercise that option had lapsed, the plaintiff was concerned that it could not develop the relevant technologya flying wind turbinewithout risking an infringement suit


The board erred in ruling that priority is established if a person of skill in the art could “envision” the invention of the claims
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

This consolidated appeal was from two related patent interference priority contests between two parties, "Sugano" and "Goeddel," decided by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the USPTO ("The Board"


Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2010

If an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then, for purposes of infringement, comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product


The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu AS
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 4 2010

Because the claims, specification, prosecution history, and prior art all suggested a uniform meaning of the claim term, and because no "special definition" was provided, the patentee had not acted as his own lexicographer