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 136

In re Applied Materials, Inc., Nos. 2011-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

The patent was obvious because it was simply an optimization of result-effective variables


In re Mouttet, No. 2011-1451 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 18 2012

Where the relevant factual inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the examiner of prior art as “primary” and “secondary” is merely a matter of presentation with no legal significance, and in considering whether a prior art reference “teaches away” from a claimed invention in determining obviousness, a known system does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use


Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

A claim construction must not exclude the preferred embodiments, the possibility of altering an accused device to meet claim limitations does not


Ateliers de la Haute-Garone v. Broetje Automation USA Inc., et al., No. 2012-1-38-1077 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • France
  • June 14 2013

To establish a failure to set forth the best mode of carrying out the invention under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1, it must be shown that the


Regents of the University of Minnesota v. ADA Medical Corp., No. 2012-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2013

An earlier prosecution disclaimer applies to a later application so long as the two have the same or closely related claim limitation language


Forrester Envtl. Servs., Inc., v. Wheelabator Techs., Inc., No. 2012-1686 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

State law tortious interference and trade secret misappropriation claims did not raise a "substantial question of federal patent law" authorizing


Dey, L.P. et al. v. Sunovion Pharm., Inc., No. 2012-1428 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Clinical drug trials operating under standard confidentiality procedures do not constitute a third-party public use under pre-America Invents Act


Motiva, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2012-1252 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

In an ITC proceeding, previous litigation of a patent by the complainant does not constitute a substantial investment in licensing to satisfy the


Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Even if a structure corresponding to a means plus function claim is known in the prior art, it must still be disclosed in the patent’s specification in order to adequately claim the function


Pregis Corp. v. Kapos, No. 2010-1492, 1532 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2012

A potential infringer cannot sue the Patent Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedure Act to attack the validity of an issued patent