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 138

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corp., No. 2012-1183 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A direct purchaser has standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim even if it does not have standing to challenge the validity of the patent


Revision Military, Inc. & Revision Military, Ltd. v. Balboa Manufacturing Co., No. 2011-1628 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A preliminary injunction enjoining patent infringement involves substantive matters unique to patent law, and therefore, is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit


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


Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady Technology LLC, No. 08-1425 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2010

The patentee, having argued limits to its claims during prosecution in order to distinguish cited prior art, may not later argue that those limitations do not apply to the claims


American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2009-1503, -1567 (Fed. Cir. Fune 27, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 6 2011

Where nondisclosed prior art is insufficient to invalidate a patent by clear and convincing evidence, a question remains as to whether it is material under Therasense for inequitable conduct purposes if the art may have blocked issuance of one or more of the claims under the PTO’s preponderance of evidence standard and assuming the broadest possible construction of the claims


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930


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


Arkema Inc., et. Al., v. Honeywell International, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment where the patentee's conduct puts it in the position of pursuing arguably illegal conduct or


Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The


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”