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

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


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


Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, no. 2009-1242 (Fed Cir. Feb. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2012

An abstract idea cannot become a patentable process by virtue of incidental connections to the physical world or the addition of a computer limitation that does not play a significant role in the performance of the claimed method


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


U.S. Supreme Court issues two unanimous decisions heightening the requirements for patent definiteness and induced patent infringement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 4 2014

In two unanimous decisions issued on Monday, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's prevailing tests for determining when a patent is


Motiva, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2012-1252 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

In an ITC proceeding, previous litigation of a patent by the complainant does not constitute a substantial investment in licensing to satisfy the


Forrester Envtl. Servs., Inc., v. Wheelabator Techs., Inc., No. 2012-1686 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

State law tortious interference and trade secret misappropriation claims did not raise a "substantial question of federal patent law" authorizing


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


The Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., No. 2012-1578 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 26, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 2 2013

Very simple expert declaration was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; limiting summary judgment


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