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 429

“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


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


In re: Smith
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 18 2016

The applicant appealed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirming the rejection of claims directed to a variation of Blackjack


SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

On SAS’s petition for inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted a review on some but not all of the challenged


Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2016

The petitioner filed for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of the patentee’s method patent. The petitioner appealed the Patent Trial and


In Re: Aqua Products, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

Aqua Products, Inc. (patent owner) appealed from a written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) of a


PTAB clarifies burden of proving entitlement to earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112 in post-issuance trials
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 9 2013

Until recently, there appeared to be an inconsistency in how the PTAB was treating the question of whether patent claims were entitled to an


In re Applied Materials, Inc., Nos. 2011-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

The patent was obvious because it was simply an optimization of result-effective variables


Claim construction arguments were waived when new constructions were argued only after the claims had been construed and the jury returned a verdict
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2010

The patents-in-suit were directed at security with respect to the use of global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine the physical location of mobile devices, such as cellular phones


Claim construction was incorrect because it did not fully differentiate between the singular and plural use of a claim term
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 31 2011

The defendant appealed a final judgment based on a jury verdict that its semiconductor wafer inspection machine infringed two claims of the plaintiff’s patent