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 473

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


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


Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 29 2016

Amgen Inc. brought an action against Apotex Inc. under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) alleging that Apotex’s marketing of


Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 12 2016

The patentee claimed infringement of a wireless communication technique embodied in several modern wireless communication standards. The district


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


Sport Dimension, Inc., v. The Coleman Company, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

The patentee claimed infringement of its design patent for a personal flotation device. The parties stipulated to a judgment based on the court’s


“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


Shum v. Intel Corp., No. 09-1385, -1419 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 28 2010

The "prevailing party," for purposes of determining an award of court costs under Rule 54, is limited to only one party, which party must have received relief on the merits that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties


Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2016

Following the grant of a petition for inter partes review (IPR), the patentee moved for entry of substitute claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board


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