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 406

In re: Cree, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 18 2016

The Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that a patent on a method of creating LED white light was invalid as


Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 18 2016

The plaintiff, a Hong Kong corporation, sued the defendant, a Canadian corporation, in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of


“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


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


PTAB places restrictions on the use of multi-party IPR petitions by defining all real parties-in-interest as a single “party” for post issuance trials.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2014

Parties considering pooling resources to file a single petition for post-issuance trial should take note of a recent decision by the Patent Trial and


PTAB makes clear that observations on cross-examination are limited to reply declarants
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2013

In Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc., IPR2013-00057, Paper 43 (Nov. 1, 2013), counsel for the Patent Owner initiated a conference call with the


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


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


TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Company, et al.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2016

The patentee claimed infringement of several patents concerning processes for manufacturing respirator filters. The alleged infringer sued for