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

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


Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company, No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Leaving expired patent number markings on products after the patents have expired, even knowingly, does not show a purpose of deceiving the public


Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., No. 2009-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Running-royalty agreements can be relevant to lump-sum damages, but "some basis for comparison must exist in the evidence presented to the jury."


Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., No. 09-1102 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Inequitable conduct by inventors or patent attorneys causes a patent to be unenforceable, even as to an innocent co-inventor


One system that accomplishes a function mechanically and another system that accomplishes the same function using magnetic force function in fundamentally different ways for purposes of determining infringement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 15 2010

The accused infringers appealed from a final determination of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that certain of their ground fault circuit interrupters (“GFCIs”) infringed various patents and that those patents were not invalid


A patentee does not misuse his patent when he offers to license a patent while inducing a third party not to license its separate patent covering competing technology
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 15 2010

The patentee and its joint venture partner established standards for compact disks


A patent is sufficiently enabled with respect to utility when the specification discloses information not found in the prior art from which a person of skill in the art would conclude that the claimed invention was useful
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 15 2010

The patentee asserted various patents directed to the drug raloxifene hydrochloride used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis


Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc v Universal Security Instruments, Inc, 2009-1421
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Whether the inventorship of the patents as issued is correct does not determine the materiality of the statements in this case, just as whether concealed prior art would actually invalidate the patent is irrelevant to materiality


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


Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2008-1334
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Even absent its actual use or performance, an apparatus claim directed to a computer that is claimed in functional terms is nonetheless infringed so long as the accused product is designed in such a way as to enable a user of that product to utilize the function without having to modify the product