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 429

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, No. 2015-1599 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

Claims directed to mental processes are patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 101


Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Nos. 2015-1703, 2015-1704, 2015-1792, and 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

Electronic restaurant ordering system patents do not fall within the technological invention exception for CBM review and are unpatentable as abstract


In re: Nuvasive, Inc., Nos. 2015-1672 and 2015-1673 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

PTAB’s refusal to give patentee opportunity to address key portion of prior art reference violates APA


REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, No. 2015-1773 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

PTAB may rely on email otherwise considered hearsay where the communication itself is probative evidence


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Nos. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, and 2015-1194 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

En banc Federal Circuit limits its review to record evidence, reinstating jury verdict


Alfred E. Mann Foundation v. Cochlear Corporation, Nos. 2015-1580, 2015-1606, and 2015-1607 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

District court’s grant of new trial on damages not appealable


FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., No. 2015-1985 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

System claims using generic computer components to perform patent-ineligible method claims are ineligible subject matter


Samsung Prevails in Supreme Court Decision Reading the Patent Act’s “Article of Manufacture” Provision to Limit Damages to Profits from Smartphones’ Infringing Components
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 7 2016

In a closely watched case arising out of the cell phone wars, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that, in cases involving


Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 2015-1845 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 23, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Conventional business practices implemented by a generic computer are patent-ineligible under 101


Asia Vital Components Co. v. Asetek Danmark AS, No. 2015-1597 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 8, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Conduct that can be reasonably inferred as demonstrating intent to enforce a patent is required to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction Asia