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

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


Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2010

An applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO


Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2010

To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, all of the elements of the claim arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim


The broadest reasonable construction of claim terms must be consistent with the specification and the claim language as read in light of the specification
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

The patent claimed a floor finishing material for athletic surfaces and other floors “comprising” certain elements



The standard to evaluate the sufficiency of incorporation by reference language in the patent specification is whether the identity of the incorporated reference is clear to a reasonable examiner in light of the documents presented
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

A patent applicant involved in a patent interference proceeding appealed a finding by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) that the claims of its present ‘880 application were unpatentable for lack of written description


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


In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference


Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

When infringement is not at issue, a lawsuit for breach of know-how and patent license agreement does not arise under patent law


Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

While not every preference constitutes a best mode for purposes of 112, the preferred embodiment of the invention must be disclosed