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 11

1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Harmonix Music Sys., Inc., and Viacom, Inc., No. 2010-1435 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 13 2012

A district court found that during prosecution of the patent, the named inventor and his attorney withheld from the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) three material references in two related prosecutions, thereby committing inequitable conduct and making the patent unenforceable


Streck, Inc., v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc., No. 2011-1045 (Fed. Cir. Oct 20, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2011

A district court has a de novo standard of review of a priority determination made by the PTO in an interference action, and the district court can consider additional evidence


In re NTP, Inc., No. 2010-1277 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2011

Issues of priority that could have been, but were not, considered during a patent's original examination, are not prohibited from being properly addressed during a reexamination


Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Company, No. 2010-1402 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 13 2011

Evidence of narrow patent claim scope in specification outweighs claim differentiation arguments in claim construction


American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2009-1503, -1567 (Fed. Cir. Fune 27, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 6 2011

Where nondisclosed prior art is insufficient to invalidate a patent by clear and convincing evidence, a question remains as to whether it is material under Therasense for inequitable conduct purposes if the art may have blocked issuance of one or more of the claims under the PTO’s preponderance of evidence standard and assuming the broadest possible construction of the claims


Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., Nos. 2009-1585, 2010-1011 (Fed. Cir. June 2, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2011

When a preamble in a patent method claim has steps that define the environment in which the patented method takes place or that describe capabilities that a device practicing the method must have, a ruling of infringement is justified even if the alleged infringer did not perform those steps


Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 2010-1145, -1177 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 8 2011

The burden of proof for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents still is a preponderance of the evidence even when an alleged equivalent is claimed in a separate patent


Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., No. 2010-1057, -1116 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 14 2011

The nature of the problem provided the motivation to combine prior art references and establish a strong prima facie case of obviousness that could not be overcome by secondary indicia of non-obviousness


In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., No. 2010-1141 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

Evidence of commercial success offered in rebuttal to a prima facie case of obviousness does not have to be commensurate in scope with the claims in order to be considered, "so long as what was sold was within the scope of the claims."