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

Licenses do not necessarily run concurrently with agreements: later-formed subsidiaries of a licensee are included within the original vesting of rights if so provided by the agreement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 10 2009

In a cross-license agreement, each party granted two licenses to the other party and its subsidiaries


Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. et al. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC et al., no. 2009-1357 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2010

For the purposes of determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for summary judgment, a court should disregard affidavits that are directly contradicted by deposition testimony or that are made without personal knowledge in order to create a genuine issue of material fact


Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corporation, et. al, 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. March 4, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

Following an order granting a permanent injunction, an infringer may still be held in contempt of that order despite good faith efforts to achieve a non-infringing design-around; and even if the infringer achieves a non-infringing design-around, it may still be held in contempt for failure to comply with the clear terms of the order


Federal courts have exclusive federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims involving the prosecution of U.S. patent applications
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

A patent applicant filed suit against her patent prosecution attorney for negligently failing to file applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (which provides a unified procedure for filing a single patent application in multiple countries) and for various acts of negligence relating to the preparation and filing of U.S. patent applications


Trading Technologies, Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 2008-1392, -1393, -1422 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

For the "all elements" rule of the doctrine of equivalents, claim vitiation applies when there is a clear, substantial difference or a difference in kind, as opposed to a subtle difference in degree


A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

Following a five-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict that defendant willfully infringed claims of a patent relating to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, but that certain dependent claims were obvious


Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design


Content solutions, such as sports trading cards, are significantly limited by theme and physical confines, meaning that the finite number of available solutions are predictable
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

On summary judgment, a district court found invalid as obvious two patents covering pieces of sports memorabilia items attached to trading cards


The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark


Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2010

When a party challenges written description support in an interference proceeding, the originating disclosure should be used for claim construction; whereas when a claim's validity is challenged in an interference proceeding, the claim must be interpreted in light of the specification in which it appears