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

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 2011-1576 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

Under Section 102(g), in order to invalidate a patent claim on the ground of prior inventorship, an alleged infringer must prove either that it conceived of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice or that it reduced its invention to practice before the critical date of the patent-at-issue


Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, no. 2009-1242 (Fed Cir. Feb. 27, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2012

An abstract idea cannot become a patentable process by virtue of incidental connections to the physical world or the addition of a computer limitation that does not play a significant role in the performance of the claimed method


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


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


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


Matthews Int’l Corp. v. Biosafe Engineering, LLC, No. 2012-1044 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2012

A manufacturer failed to show a "substantial controversy" supporting a declaratory judgment action because the manufacturer did not take steps to perform the patented method and there was no evidence about the manufacturer’s customers' use of the manufacturer’s products to perform the patented methods


Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 2012-1228 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 26 2012

Defendants’ burden of proof for invalidity is not raised because a reference was previously before the PTO; statements made during prosecution to rebut enablement rejections under Section 112 may be used as proof of motivation to combine references under Section 103


Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The


Aventis Pharma S.A. & Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Hospira, Inc. et al., Nos. 07-CV-0721 & 08-CV-0496 (Fed. Cir. April 9, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2012

Inequitable conduct finding affirmed on the merits after Therasense, and claim construction and obviousness rulings upheld where appellant's proposed construction required imposing limitations not required by the claims or other intrinsic evidence