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


In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin


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


A courts inherent power to award attorney's fees should be reserved for cases in which the conduct of the party or an attorney is egregious and no other basis for sanctions exists
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

Following a jurys finding of infringement, the district court granted defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on non-infringement and granted defendants' petition seeking attorneys fees and expenses


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


For purposes of determining patent term extension under 35 U.S.C 156, an enantiomer has consistently been recognized, by the FDA and the PTO, as a different “drug product” from its racemate
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patent-in-suit covered an antimicrobial compound having the common name levofloxacin, and is the levorotatory enantiomer of the racemate ofloxacin, which is a known antimicrobial product




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