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 462

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


“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


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


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


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


Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., No. 2011-1223 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2013

A synergistic effect that is predictable renders a claim obvious. After being sued for infringement, a generic drug manufacturer sought to invalidate


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