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 370

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


Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

Royalties for SEPs cannot include the value of standarization regardless of whether the patentee committed to licensing subject to RAND terms


Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

Art included in the original prosecution is “prior art of record” in an IPR proceeding even if not cited in the IPR petition


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


Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

The PTAB has authority to deny a motion for supplemental information even if the motion meets the requirements for submitting supplemental


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


“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


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


MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

IPRs do not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment’s right to trial by jury


Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012-1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 24 2013

The assertion of different claims in a subsequent suitwhen those claims all contain a limitation that has already been construed, in the same context