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.


Clear all

Refine your search

Content type



8 results found


Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 19 Oct 2011

Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., No. 2010-1503, -1504 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2011).

Failure to object to a special master’s claim construction within the period specified by court order or the Federal Rules is grounds for waiver, and the entire invention in a patent application should not be limited to the preferred embodiment solely because the preferred embodiment is referred to as the “present invention” when the specification does not uniformly refer to this embodiment as being co-extensive with the entire invention.


Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 31 Aug 2011

The waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in 5 U.S.C 702 applies to a request for declaratory judgment against the United States on a cause of action arising under the Patent Act

Plaintiffs Delano Farms et al brought a declaratory judgment action against the California Table Grape Commission (Commission) seeking to invalidate or render unenforceable three patents on grape varietals.


Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 16 Nov 2010

A123 Systems, Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec

An exclusive licensee in the field of use lacks standing to sue without joining the patent owner.


Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 10 Aug 2010

Claim construction arguments were waived when new constructions were argued only after the claims had been construed and the jury returned a verdict

The patents-in-suit were directed at security with respect to the use of global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine the physical location of mobile devices, such as cellular phones.


Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 2 Jun 2010

A patentee’s rights are only exhausted by a sale within the United States

The patent involved single use cameras.


Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 2 Jun 2010

Oral testimony can be used to prove the scope of a printed publication as an anticipating reference

A jury found the patent infringed and valid.

Previous page 1 Next page