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

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


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


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



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


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


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


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