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 359

In re Hugh Edward Montgomery, John Francis Martin, and Jorge Daniel Erusalimsky, No. 2011-1376 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2012

Prior art describing an unexecuted process or protocol may inherently anticipate claims when the result at issue inevitably flows from its disclosures


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


PTAB explains circumstances where cross-examination of declarant may be limited to grounds on which trial is instituted
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 9 2013

The PTAB recently clarified the instances in which it might consider a motion to limit the cross-examination of a declarant and when it might not


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


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


Where a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity is dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party, the party filing the complaint may file a later petition for inter partes review.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 16 2014

In enacting the statutes related to inter partes review, Congress sought to preclude a party from selecting two venues for raising simultaneous


Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., No. 2013-1438 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 30 2014

The goals of the specification may not be claim requirements; further, claims are construed according to the patent's own lexicography and, where


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


Patent Trial and Appeal Board explains that motions to amend in covered business method patent review are subject to the same standards as motions to amend in inter partes review.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 16 2014

Over the last year, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") has issued a number of decisions showing just how different the procedures for


Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation, et al., No. 2013-1165 (Fed. Cir. January 10, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2014

An apparatus claim, drafted in functional terms, directed to a computer is infringed if the accused product is designed in such a way to utilize the