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

Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

Not all terms of degree are indefinite; a means-plus-function claim is infringed when the accused device includes a relevant structure that performs the same function in a substantially similar way, resulting in structural equivalency


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


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


TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 2009-1423
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Though a district court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, the court must provide its reasoning somewhere in the record when its underlying holdings would otherwise be ambiguous or unascertainable


Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2008-1334
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Even absent its actual use or performance, an apparatus claim directed to a computer that is claimed in functional terms is nonetheless infringed so long as the accused product is designed in such a way as to enable a user of that product to utilize the function without having to modify the product


Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company, No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Leaving expired patent number markings on products after the patents have expired, even knowingly, does not show a purpose of deceiving the public


Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., No. 2009-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Running-royalty agreements can be relevant to lump-sum damages, but "some basis for comparison must exist in the evidence presented to the jury."


Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., No. 09-1102 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

Inequitable conduct by inventors or patent attorneys causes a patent to be unenforceable, even as to an innocent co-inventor


The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark