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 64

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

When infringement is not at issue, a lawsuit for breach of know-how and patent license agreement does not arise under patent law


Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

While not every preference constitutes a best mode for purposes of 112, the preferred embodiment of the invention must be disclosed


I4I Ltd. Partnership & Infrastructures For Info. Inc., v. Microsoft Corp
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

The test for willfulness is distinct and separate from the factors guiding a district court's discretion regarding whether and by how much to enhance damages in light of a willfulness finding


Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

The scope of a design patent claim must be construed to identify the ornamental and functional aspects of the design, and applying the ordinary observer test, the trier of fact must determine whether the deception that arises is a result of the similarities in the overall design, not of similarities in ornamental features in isolation



No “prudential reasons” or perceived increases in efficiency can trump the lack of a case or controversy brought about by a covenant not to sue that extinguishes all current and future claims
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The alleged infringer brought a declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement of two patents


A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions


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


The fact that a patentee used equivocal language when communicating with an accused infringer will not prevent a court from applying equitable estoppel
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The district court granted the accused infringer’s motion for dismissal on equitable estoppel grounds based on the patentee’s three years of silence after contacting the accused infringer concerning infringement


Oral testimony can be used to prove the scope of a printed publication as an anticipating reference
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

A jury found the patent infringed and valid