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 480

Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 29 2016

The plaintiff, The Medicines Company (MedCo), sued in the District of Delaware alleging that the Defendant’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA


Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2013-1567 (July 7, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2014

Where some, but not all, findings of infringement are reversed but no remand is sought, and a general damage award is consistent with the mandate


“Substantial new question” vs. “reasonable likelihood”: has the difference in legal standard made a difference in practice?
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 19 2013

Under the America Invents Act ("AIA"), what was once the standard used by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to determine whether to institute


CBM review cannot raise prior art under pre-AIA section 102(e)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 19 2013

One key difference between IPR and CBM review is the availability of prior art. Certain prior arg cannot be raised in a CBM review. In what has


Husky Injection Molding Systems v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-1726 and 2015-1727 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review PTAB determinations on whether assignor estoppel precludes institution of IPR; incorporation by reference


PTAB makes clear that observations on cross-examination are limited to reply declarants
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2013

In Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc., IPR2013-00057, Paper 43 (Nov. 1, 2013), counsel for the Patent Owner initiated a conference call with the


Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2015-1256 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2016

A district court may consider claim construction arguments raised for the first time on a motion to reconsider


Apple v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2016

The appeal results from a patent infringement suit and countersuit between Apple and Samsung relating to patents that cover various aspects of the


Raymond E. Stauffer v. Brooks brothers Group, Inc., No. 2013-1180 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2014

The changes to the false marking statute under the America Invents Act are retroactive; any existing or future plaintiff must be a party that has


Supreme Court extends Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. to computer patents
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2014

The Supreme Court held that patent claims that are directed towards abstract ideas will not be patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 unless the claim