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

When a commercial product meets all of the claim limitations, a comparison to that product may support a finding of infringement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2010

The district court entered a judgment that the accused infringer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product would not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit


Claim construction arguments were waived when new constructions were argued only after the claims had been construed and the jury returned a verdict
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2010

The patents-in-suit were directed at security with respect to the use of global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine the physical location of mobile devices, such as cellular phones



A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2010

The patentee sued the alleged infringer on a patent involving safety needles for blood collection


Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2010

For obviousness-type double patenting, a claim to a method of using a composition is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent's claim to the identical composition where the earlier patent discloses the identical use; where multiple uses are disclosed in the earlier patent, a later patent impermissibly extends the monopoly if it claims any of the disclosed uses


In an obviousness analysis, the ultimate inference as to the existence of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of “common sense” appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2010

A jury found that an accused infringer failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that claims of three patents covering barbell-shaped hitch pin locks that secure trailers to cars would have been obvious


SEB, S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 10 2010

Without fully defining the territorial limits of infringement, no fundamental error occurred in finding products shipped to the United States and intended for the United States market as infringing


Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2010

To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, all of the elements of the claim arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim


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


Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 19 2010

Under 35 U.S.C. 154(b), a patentee is entitled to patent term adjustments that combine the period of delay caused by the failure of the PTO in meeting certain examination deadlines, and by the period of delay caused by the PTO's failure to issue a patent within three years after the actual filing date