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

Genzyme Therapeutic Products v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

The patentee appealed two inter partes review (IPR) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), arguing that by relying on facts and legal


Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

The patentee appealed the district court’s grant of the accused infringer’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding that the claims


Intendis GMBH, et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the district court held that the alleged infringer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product, a topical gel for the


TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

TLI Communications appealed the Eastern District of Virginia’s decision that its patent failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C


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


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


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


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


Apple v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2016

The appeal results from a patent infringement suit and countersuit between Apple and Samsung relating to patents that cover various aspects of 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