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

Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, No. 2015-1919 (Feb. 15, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2017

While sending letters into a forum is not enough for personal jurisdiction to be "fair and reasonable," if a party "does more," then jurisdiction may


Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, Nos. 2016-2433 and 2016-2514 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2017

An absent claim limitation and an unsupported motivation to combine are not sufficient to raise a substantial question as to a patentee’s likelihood


Laches Cannot Bar Damages for Patent Infringement Within the Six Year Statute of Limitations
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 22 2017

Building on its 2014 copyright decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 yesterday that the equitable defense of


Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., No. 2016-1475 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2017

USPTO examiner and the PTAB can rely on expert declarations in reexamination as long as declaration relates to factual findings


Personal WebTechnologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2016-1174 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2017

PTAB’s obviousness determination for challenged patent vacated for lack of sufficient support


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


Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intl., Nos. 2015-1329 and 2015-1388 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 3 2017

Induced infringement requires “actual infringement,” and findings of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents may give rise to improper “claim


“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


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


Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP, et al., No. 2011-1297 (Fed. Cir. April 23, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2012

A patent’s reissued claims are not broader than the claims of a divisional counterpart simply because the divisional counterpart's claims contain limitations not present in the reissued claims