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 474

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


Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., No. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Computer elements and components that are merely restated as individual abstract functions rather than being transformed into an inventive concept


Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 2015-5150 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Claims utilizing mathematical equations are not necessarily “doomed” as unpatentable subject matter under 101


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


Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Company, Nos. 2016-1128 and 2016-1132 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Patent application not identified in assignment agreement expressly listing assigned patents and applications was not assigned


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


In re: Chudik, No. 2016-1817 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Prior art is not anticipatory if it must be “distorted from its obvious design”


University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, No. 2016-1336 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Determination of exceptional cases under 35 U.S.C. 285 continue to be reviewed for abuse of discretion post-Octane Fitness


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


Laches Cannot Bar Damages for Patent Infringement Within the Six Year Statute of Limitations
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 22 2017

Building on its 2014 copyright decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 yesterday that the equitable defense of