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 505

“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


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


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


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


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


Nichia Corporation v. Everlight Americas, Inc., Nos. 2016-1585 and 2016-1618 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2017

Courts not required to grant injunction upon finding of infringement unless patentee proves all four equitable factors The patentee sued the alleged


The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., Nos. 2015-1113, 2015-1151, and 2015-1181 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2017

Federal Circuit interprets the term “batches” in patent claims to require a specific process of “efficient mixing” from specification


Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, No. 2015-1599 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2016

Claims directed to mental processes are patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 101


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