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


Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2008-1334
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Even absent its actual use or performance, an apparatus claim directed to a computer that is claimed in functional terms is nonetheless infringed so long as the accused product is designed in such a way as to enable a user of that product to utilize the function without having to modify the product



SiRF Technology, Inc. v. ITC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 23 2010

The International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued an exclusion and cease and desist order on importation of certain Global Positioning System ("GPS") devices and products after finding that the devices and products infringed certain patents


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


SEB, S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 10 2010

Without fully defining the territorial limits of infringement, no fundamental error occurred in finding products shipped to the United States and intended for the United States market as infringing


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


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