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

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



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


A patentee “cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification” required to provide an adequate enabling disclosure
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

The patent-in-suit was directed to an extended release formulation of methylphenidate (“MPH”) for the treatment of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”


For purposes of determining inequitable conduct, “substantive involvement” in the preparation or prosecution of a patent application means that the involvement relates to the content of the application or decisions related thereto
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

The patent-in-suit was directed to a multi-mode radio-frequency identification system for reading encoded biocompatible chips


Generally, claim preambles do not limit the claims; but dissenting judge argues for new rule that all preambles should limit claim scope
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

The holders of a patent claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation appealed an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement


In the absence of clear and unambiguous language to the contrary, general claim release language is insufficient to infer an intent to release all claims of patent invalidity and unenforceability
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2010

In previous litigation for breach of contract, the parties reached a settlement agreement that granted the current plaintiff an option to acquire a nonexclusive license to the patent-in-suit. After the time to exercise that option had lapsed, the plaintiff was concerned that it could not develop the relevant technologya flying wind turbinewithout risking an infringement suit


In an obviousness analysis, the ultimate inference as to the existence of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of “common sense” appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2010

A jury found that an accused infringer failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that claims of three patents covering barbell-shaped hitch pin locks that secure trailers to cars would have been obvious


The appearance in the complaint of an alternative, non-patent theory with respect to each claim compels the conclusion that the claims do not "arise under" patent law
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

The parties had settled a previous patent infringement dispute by entering into a license agreement