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 Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark


Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2010

If an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then, for purposes of infringement, comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product


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


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


Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. et al. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC et al., no. 2009-1357 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2010

For the purposes of determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for summary judgment, a court should disregard affidavits that are directly contradicted by deposition testimony or that are made without personal knowledge in order to create a genuine issue of material fact


Licenses do not necessarily run concurrently with agreements: later-formed subsidiaries of a licensee are included within the original vesting of rights if so provided by the agreement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 10 2009

In a cross-license agreement, each party granted two licenses to the other party and its subsidiaries


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



Green Edge Enterprises, LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

Despite patentee’s failure to identify the accurate trade name or product code of a preferred product, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding failure to satisfy best mode if one of ordinary skill in the art could have discovered the preferred product


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