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 65

A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions



Malpractice claims against patent attorneys necessarily rely on federal law because the fiduciary duties owed by patent counsel are governed by federal statutes and the manual of patent examination procedure
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The initial controversy before the district court concerned fifteen claims made by the plaintiff-inventorunder a combination of federal and state lawagainst his former patent counsel and employer, alleging the improper listing of a co-inventor on the patent application and improper legal representation of that individual due to the conflicting interests of the plaintiff


The fact that a patentee used equivocal language when communicating with an accused infringer will not prevent a court from applying equitable estoppel
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The district court granted the accused infringer’s motion for dismissal on equitable estoppel grounds based on the patentee’s three years of silence after contacting the accused infringer concerning infringement


Oral testimony can be used to prove the scope of a printed publication as an anticipating reference
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

A jury found the patent infringed and valid


Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency


Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company, No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Leaving expired patent number markings on products after the patents have expired, even knowingly, does not show a purpose of deceiving the public


Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., No. 2009-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Running-royalty agreements can be relevant to lump-sum damages, but "some basis for comparison must exist in the evidence presented to the jury."


Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., No. 09-1102 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Inequitable conduct by inventors or patent attorneys causes a patent to be unenforceable, even as to an innocent co-inventor


In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin