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 452

Drone Technologies, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., Nos. 2015-1892 and 2015-1955 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Proportionality requirements of FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) apply at initial disclosures stage under local Patent Rules


“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


Will ex parte reexamination become a tool for patent owners as a hedge against inter partes review?
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 9 2013

As the Board continues to develop its jurisprudence related to the amendment of patent claims in inter partes review, the Board has repeatedly


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


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


Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corporation, No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2016

PTAB may not summarily dismiss patent owner’s motions to further amend combination claims


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


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


Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2013-1567 (July 7, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2014

Where some, but not all, findings of infringement are reversed but no remand is sought, and a general damage award is consistent with the mandate