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

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


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


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


Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Even if a structure corresponding to a means plus function claim is known in the prior art, it must still be disclosed in the patent’s specification in order to adequately claim the function


In re Energy Transp. Grp., Inc., Nos. 2011-1487, -1488, -1489 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

A court may find that an accused device infringes an asserted patent even though it does not literally meet an explicit limitation if there is an insubstantial change in the way the accused device meets the limitation due to advances in technology


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


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


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus to constitute irreparable harm, consumer demand must be directly tied to the allegedly infringing feature


CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty Ltd., No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2012

Method and system claims covering a computerized trading platform for exchanging financial obligations through a third party intermediary satisfy statutory requirements for patent-eligible subject matter because, considering all limitations, it is not manifestly evident that the claims are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea