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 250

Edwards Lifesciences AG v Corevalve Inc., Nos. 2011-1215, -1257 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

The verdict that the patent was valid and infringed was upheld, after the Federal Circuit found the verdict to be supported by substantial evidence


Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2010

The defense of prosecution laches requires a finding of prejudice as shown by evidence of intervening rights; for inequitable conduct, a finding of intent to deceive cannot rely solely on the same evidence used to support a finding of materiality


A123 Systems, Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2010

An exclusive licensee in the field of use lacks standing to sue without joining the patent owner


SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histrogen Inc., No. 2012-1560 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

Patent prosecution history and specification were held to implicitly redefine the terms of a claim


University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V., Case No. 2012-1540, -1541, -1661 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over a suit to correct inventorship between a State University and officials from another State


Awards of costs under 28 U.S.C. 1920 for electronic discovery expenses are limited to the steps necessary to produce the documents in the form demanded by the requesting party
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

In August 2007, the patentee sued for patent infringement. The district court granted summary judgment against the patentee. The accused infringers


Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes AS., No. 2013-1214 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 19 2014

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment action even if no litigation is pending or threatened when a "substantial risk" of litigation


A Section 337 exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission may not be based on induced infringement where the accused products do not infringe until after importation
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

A complainant accused certain optical scanning devices of infringing its patents. After an investigation, the International Trade Commission issued


Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation, et al., No. 2013-1165 (Fed. Cir. January 10, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2014

An apparatus claim, drafted in functional terms, directed to a computer is infringed if the accused product is designed in such a way to utilize the


Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n & Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 2012-1445, -1535 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 11 2013

To meet Section 337’s domestic-industry requirement, the moving party must show a product practicing the protected patent