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

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


Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

In the construction of a means-plus-function claim element under 35 USC 112, 6, the concept of incorporation by reference is insufficient to include a structure in a prior art reference as a corresponding structure


Power-One, Inc., v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

The fact that a claim is defined using a relative term (eg "near") instead of a precise numerical measurement does not render the claim incapable of providing meaningful guidance if the claim language, taken in context of the entire patent, provides a sufficiently reasonable meaning to one skilled in the art


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


Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 19 2010

Under 35 U.S.C. 154(b), a patentee is entitled to patent term adjustments that combine the period of delay caused by the failure of the PTO in meeting certain examination deadlines, and by the period of delay caused by the PTO's failure to issue a patent within three years after the actual filing date


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


A patentee “cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification” required to provide an adequate enabling disclosure
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

The patent-in-suit was directed to an extended release formulation of methylphenidate (“MPH”) for the treatment of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”


For purposes of determining patent term extension under 35 U.S.C 156, an enantiomer has consistently been recognized, by the FDA and the PTO, as a different “drug product” from its racemate
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patent-in-suit covered an antimicrobial compound having the common name levofloxacin, and is the levorotatory enantiomer of the racemate ofloxacin, which is a known antimicrobial product


For purposes of determining inequitable conduct, “substantive involvement” in the preparation or prosecution of a patent application means that the involvement relates to the content of the application or decisions related thereto
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

The patent-in-suit was directed to a multi-mode radio-frequency identification system for reading encoded biocompatible chips


A courts inherent power to award attorney's fees should be reserved for cases in which the conduct of the party or an attorney is egregious and no other basis for sanctions exists
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

Following a jurys finding of infringement, the district court granted defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on non-infringement and granted defendants' petition seeking attorneys fees and expenses