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

In an interference proceeding, the board must interpret the copied claim in view of the originating disclosure for a written description challenge and in view of the host disclosure for a validity challenge based on prior art
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The senior party provoked an interference with the junior party by copying the claims of the junior party’s patent into the senior party’s application


Although reluctant to exclude an embodiment, the court must “not allow the disclosed embodiment to outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence”
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

In a patent interference appeal, the district court construed the claim terms and found that the junior party’s patent did not overlap with, and was not obvious in light of the senior party’s application, and was therefore patentably distinct


In determining inequitable conduct, the withholding of a “highly material” reference alone is not sufficient to establish intent to deceive the Patent Office
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The accused infringer alleged that patentee’s failure to disclose an article to the examiner rendered the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct


Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design


In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference


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


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


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


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


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