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

Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design


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


In an interference proceeding, the board must interpret the copied claim in view of the originating disclosure for a written description challenge and in view of the host disclosure for a validity challenge based on prior art
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The senior party provoked an interference with the junior party by copying the claims of the junior party’s patent into the senior party’s application


Although reluctant to exclude an embodiment, the court must “not allow the disclosed embodiment to outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence”
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

In a patent interference appeal, the district court construed the claim terms and found that the junior party’s patent did not overlap with, and was not obvious in light of the senior party’s application, and was therefore patentably distinct


In determining inequitable conduct, the withholding of a “highly material” reference alone is not sufficient to establish intent to deceive the Patent Office
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The accused infringer alleged that patentee’s failure to disclose an article to the examiner rendered the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct


Content solutions, such as sports trading cards, are significantly limited by theme and physical confines, meaning that the finite number of available solutions are predictable
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2010

On summary judgment, a district court found invalid as obvious two patents covering pieces of sports memorabilia items attached to trading cards


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


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