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 417

Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

The patentee sued for infringement of a patent related to methods of analyzing sequences of DNA within an individual’s genome. Specifically, the


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


Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A. and South Alabama Medical Science v. Gnosis S.P.A
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A. (Gnosis I), the petitioner filed a petition for rehearing en banc of a panel decision affirming the result in an


In re: Man Machine Interface Tech LLC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

A third party sought ex parte reexamination of a patent relating to a remote control device. The examiner rejected some of the claims as being


HP Inc. v. MPHJ Technology Investments
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

The petitioner filed for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of the patent-in-suit, asserting that the contested claims were invalid as


Rembrandt Vision Techs, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

The patent owner appealed the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for a new trial following a jury’s verdict that the plaintiff had


In re: TC Heartland LLC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2016

Congress’ 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. 1391 did not overrule Federal Circuit precedent holding that the definition of corporate residence in the


“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


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 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