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

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


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


Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 23 2010

Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier-filed application date requires that the missing descriptive matter must be present in the original application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure


Federal Circuit patent decision summaries
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 24 2009

To be anticipatory, a prior art reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation



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


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


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


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