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


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




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


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



A patentee’s rights are only exhausted by a sale within the United States
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The patent involved single use cameras


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