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

SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. et al., No. 2011-1346 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

To determine whether matter incorporated by reference into a patent satisfies the disclosure-dedication rule, the host patent must inform one of skill in the art “that the incorporated document contains subject matter that is an alternative to a claim limitation” and the disclosure in the incorporated document must be of such specificity that one of skill in the art “could identify the subject matter that had been disclosed and not claimed”


In re Energy Transp. Grp., Inc., Nos. 2011-1487, -1488, -1489 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

A court may find that an accused device infringes an asserted patent even though it does not literally meet an explicit limitation if there is an insubstantial change in the way the accused device meets the limitation due to advances in technology


Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc., No. 2011-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2012

Even if a claim does not include the word “means,” there is only a rebuttable presumption, and not an absolute conclusion, that 35 U.S.C. 112 6 was not intended to govern the claim; a written description limitation should not be read into a claim if it is not used in the claim


Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor, LLC, No. 2011-1514 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Rule against recapture during reissue proceedings can apply where, during reissue prosecution, process claim limitations are removed from originally issued product-by-process claims and the process imparts novel structural characteristics to the claimed product


Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corp., No. 2012-1183 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

A direct purchaser has standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim even if it does not have standing to challenge the validity of the patent


Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Product Company, 2011-1291, 2012-1046, -1057, -1087, -1088 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Patentee's profit in the face of infringement does not prevent permanent injunction; "25 rule of thumb" and profit-margin ceilings for royalties


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930


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


Outside The Box Innovations, LLC, et al. v. Travel Caddy, Inc., et al., No. 2009-1171 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 19 2012

A district court held a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct for two reasons


Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2011-1313, -1372 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 19 2012

A licensee seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement bears the burden of proof in the limited circumstance where the license prevents the patentee from asserting a counterclaim for infringement