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

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 2011-1576 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

Under Section 102(g), in order to invalidate a patent claim on the ground of prior inventorship, an alleged infringer must prove either that it conceived of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice or that it reduced its invention to practice before the critical date of the patent-at-issue


U.S. Supreme Court holds that individual damages issues may preclude class certification
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 1 2013

For years now, some courts have been willing to allow class actions to proceed in the face of individualized damages issues, on the theory that those


U.S. Supreme Court holds that plaintiffs may not circumvent CAFA’s clear purpose by creative pleading
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2013

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision that signals that the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") should be given its


Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Product Company, 2011-1291, 2012-1046, -1057, -1087, -1088 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Patentee's profit in the face of infringement does not prevent permanent injunction; "25 rule of thumb" and profit-margin ceilings for royalties


The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, Nos. 2012-1642, 2013-1024 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 20 2013

In an equitable conduct assertion, an argument of lack of corroboration of testimony for invalidation of a patent is evaluated for materiality under


Supreme Court extends Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. to computer patents
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2014

The Supreme Court held that patent claims that are directed towards abstract ideas will not be patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 unless the claim


St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., No. 2012-1452 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2013

Consonance requires that the challenged patent, the reference patent, and the restricted patent claim none of the same inventions identified by the


Regents of the University of Minnesota v. ADA Medical Corp., No. 2012-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2013

An earlier prosecution disclaimer applies to a later application so long as the two have the same or closely related claim limitation language


Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2012-1042 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

In order to prove induced infringement, a patentee must prove that an alleged infringer possessed actual knowledge that the induced acts would


Wyeth et al. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 2012-1223, -1224 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

A claim on a molecule is not adequately enabled by a specification with only one working example if one of ordinary skill in the art would be