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

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


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"


No “prudential reasons” or perceived increases in efficiency can trump the lack of a case or controversy brought about by a covenant not to sue that extinguishes all current and future claims
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The alleged infringer brought a declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement of two patents


Generally, claim preambles do not limit the claims; but dissenting judge argues for new rule that all preambles should limit claim scope
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

The holders of a patent claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation appealed an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement


A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions