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

Arkema Inc., et. Al., v. Honeywell International, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment where the patentee's conduct puts it in the position of pursuing arguably illegal conduct or


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


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


Woods v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., No. 2010-1478 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Section 282’s requirement that prior art be disclosed at least 30 days before trial does not eliminate other disclosure requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; a patentee’s failure to explicitly challenge that the prior art contains a limitation is not a concession that the prior art includes that limitation


Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2011-1392 (Fed. Cir. September 4, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Directed verdict of non-infringement of several patents was appropriate where: 1) patentee failed to demonstrate element-by-element equivalence for the patents asserted under DOE infringement, and 2) patentee had put forth no evidence of any instance of direct infringement of the patent asserted under induced infringement


In re Diabetes Care Inc., No. 2011-1516, -1517 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2012

A limitation for external cables or wires cannot be read into a claim where this element is only disclosed by a statement in the specification addressing deficiencies in the prior art


In re Rambus, No. 2011-1247 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Claim construction should not be limited by the goal of the patent unless the goal could not be achieved with alternative construction; terms should be construed with an eye toward use of the same term in related patents


Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Nos. 2011-1538, -1567, 2012-1129, -1201 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

In a permanent injunction analysis, a finding that the public interest factor supports an injunction is not itself sufficient to mandate injunctive relief


1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Harmonix Music Sys., Inc., and Viacom, Inc., No. 2010-1435 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 13 2012

A district court found that during prosecution of the patent, the named inventor and his attorney withheld from the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) three material references in two related prosecutions, thereby committing inequitable conduct and making the patent unenforceable


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”