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 491

Supreme Court Reverses Broad Interpretation Of Residence For Venue In Patent Cases
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 23 2017

In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday limited the venues in which patent defendants may be hauled into court. In TC


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


Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Under Kennametal, a prior art reference with a missing limitation is not sufficient to establish anticipation simply because a skilled artisan would


Bayer Cropscience AG, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, No. 2015-1854 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Unreasonable conduct during litigation can result in an award of attorneys’ fees despite the existence of an objectively reasonable case on the


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


Mentor Graphics Corporation v. EVE-USA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1470, 2015-1554, and 2015-1556 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Federal Circuit holds satisfaction of Panduit factors satisfies apportionment requirement


“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


Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2015-1256 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2016

A district court may consider claim construction arguments raised for the first time on a motion to reconsider


McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, No. 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Method claims reciting specific means or improvements to the art are patentable, while method claims directed to abstract results or effects using


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