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

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


Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., No. 2009-1428, -1430, -1453 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2010

Any person has standing to pursue an action under Section 292 because a violation of that statute inherently constitutes an injury to the United States and, consequently, to the government's assignee


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


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


Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency


Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 2009-1403, -1491 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

A method claim is directly infringed only if each step of the claimed method is performed


Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., No. 2009-1544,-1545 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

In order for a patent to claim priority through a chain of patent applications, each application in the priority chain must contain a specific reference to prior applications in the chain


The secondary considerations of non-obviousness of commercial success, failure of others, and industry praise must be linked to the claimed invention, not pre-existing market share
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 31 2010

Patentee sued for infringement of a patent for a “bundle breaker” used for breaking multiple, uneven bundles of corrugated board


Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., v. Eisai Co., Ltd.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2010

A subsequent ANDA filer has a legally cognizable interest in when the first filer's exclusivity period begins, such that delay in triggering that period qualifies as "injury-in-fact" for the purposes of Article III


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