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

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


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


Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 10 2010

District courts performing reasonable royalty calculations must exercise vigilance when considering past licenses to technologies other than the patent in suit


The context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

The patentee sued the accused infringer on a patent related to automatically calling an elevator and taking a passenger to a specific location based on passenger specific information



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