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

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


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


Claim construction arguments were waived when new constructions were argued only after the claims had been construed and the jury returned a verdict
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2010

The patents-in-suit were directed at security with respect to the use of global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine the physical location of mobile devices, such as cellular phones



A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2010

The patentee sued the alleged infringer on a patent involving safety needles for blood collection


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


Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 2007-1386 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2010

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