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

Where an ambiguous disclosure otherwise might have sufficed to support an earlier priority date, contrary arguments made to persuade an examiner to allow the application may preclude the priority claim
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the accused infringer, holding that a patent issuing on a continuation-in-part application related to collapsible storage containers was not entitled to an earlier filing date because material claimed had been disclaimed during prosecution of the priority patent by patentee’s attorney


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



Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 2009-1403, -1491 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

A method claim is directly infringed only if each step of the claimed method is performed


Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., No. 2009-1544,-1545 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

In order for a patent to claim priority through a chain of patent applications, each application in the priority chain must contain a specific reference to prior applications in the chain


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