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


Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2012

The parties in a Hatch-Waxman litigation cross-appealed rulings from a bench trial decision that found no inequitable conduct had occurred during prosecution of the patents, but that held the asserted patents invalid as either lacking sufficient written description or being obvious over prior art


Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC, no. 2011-1173, -1200 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2012

In order for a means-plus-function claim to be interpreted to encompass a broader generic structure, even if the generic structure is well-known in the art, the generic structure must appear in the patent specification and be clearly linked to the claimed function


AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Apotex Corp et al., No. 2011-1182, -1183, -1184, -1185, -1186, -1187, -1188, -1189, -1190 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2012).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 29 2012

A patentee, merely pleading that an alleged infringer filed an ANDA for unpatented indications, may satisfy jurisdictional requirements but will not satisfy Rule 12’s pleading requirement for an infringement claim under 271(e)(2) of the Hatch-Waxman Act


Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc., No. 2011-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2012

Even if a claim does not include the word “means,” there is only a rebuttable presumption, and not an absolute conclusion, that 35 U.S.C. 112 6 was not intended to govern the claim; a written description limitation should not be read into a claim if it is not used in the claim



Momenta Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Amphastar Pharms., Inc. et al., nos. 2012-1062, -1103, -1104 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2012

Post-approval studies of generic drugs that are “reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs,” fall within the scope of the Hatch-Waxman Act safe harbor, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1


Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, no. 2010-1093 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2012

The doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest where the limitation that is sought to be “read into” an independent claim already appears in a dependent claim and is the only meaningful difference between the claims


Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

A computer-related means-plus-function term must disclose either a corresponding structure or an algorithm in its specification to meet the claim definiteness requirements of section 112 2


SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. et al., No. 2011-1346 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

To determine whether matter incorporated by reference into a patent satisfies the disclosure-dedication rule, the host patent must inform one of skill in the art “that the incorporated document contains subject matter that is an alternative to a claim limitation” and the disclosure in the incorporated document must be of such specificity that one of skill in the art “could identify the subject matter that had been disclosed and not claimed”