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


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 broadest reasonable construction of claim terms must be consistent with the specification and the claim language as read in light of the specification
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

The patent claimed a floor finishing material for athletic surfaces and other floors “comprising” certain elements



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


In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin


Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency


Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

In the construction of a means-plus-function claim element under 35 USC 112, 6, the concept of incorporation by reference is insufficient to include a structure in a prior art reference as a corresponding structure