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


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


A patentee “cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification” required to provide an adequate enabling disclosure
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

The patent-in-suit was directed to an extended release formulation of methylphenidate (“MPH”) for the treatment of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”


For purposes of determining inequitable conduct, “substantive involvement” in the preparation or prosecution of a patent application means that the involvement relates to the content of the application or decisions related thereto
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

The patent-in-suit was directed to a multi-mode radio-frequency identification system for reading encoded biocompatible chips


The appearance in the complaint of an alternative, non-patent theory with respect to each claim compels the conclusion that the claims do not "arise under" patent law
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2010

The parties had settled a previous patent infringement dispute by entering into a license agreement



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


Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc v Universal Security Instruments, Inc, 2009-1421
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Whether the inventorship of the patents as issued is correct does not determine the materiality of the statements in this case, just as whether concealed prior art would actually invalidate the patent is irrelevant to materiality