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

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


The doctrine of res judicata does not punish a plaintiff for exercising the option not to supplement its pleadings with an after-acquired claim, including those relating to inventorship
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

In 2004, Triple Tee initiated its first lawsuit against Nike claiming that Nike had misappropriated Triple Tee’s trade secrets involving golf club technology



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


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


Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v Barr Laboratories, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2010

In a patent infringement suit involving claims directed to the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, the patent at issue was the third in a chain of related divisional patents


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


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


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


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