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 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


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



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


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


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


General Protecht Group, Inc. v. Internal Trade Commission, 2009-1378, -1387, -1434 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2010

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