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 876

Biosimilar Litigants Dispute Probative Value of Statements Exchanged During the Patent Dance
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • February 27 2017

Patent owner Amgen has appealed to the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn a non-infringement ruling with respect to Apotex's manufacturing processes


Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • July 7 2016

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board


Iintel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2012

251 suggests to a potential licensee that -- in the absence of contrary language in the licensing agreement -- a license under the patent that is not directed to any specific claims, field of use or other limited right will extend to the full extent of protection provided by law to the invention which is the subject of that patent.


CLS Bank and Bancorp: back to back Federal Circuit decisions offer different conclusions on patentability
  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • USA
  • August 2 2012

The issue of whether particular inventions include "patent eligible" subject matter under 101 of the patent statute has become highly controversial in recent years, raising questions with high economic stakes and profound legal and philosophical implications.


Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., no. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2011)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2011

A description in prose of an algorithm is sufficiently definite to identify the corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation under 112 6, and there is no infringement if a device is merely capable of being modified to perform the patented function.


Flowchart inadequate structure to define a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation - In re Aoyama (Fed. Cir. 2011)
  • Vedder Price PC
  • USA
  • November 11 2011

A flowchart alone is an insufficient structure to define a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C.


The Federal Circuit says
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2011

Means-plus-function claim terms that lack sufficient structural disclosure in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112, 6, are unpatentable as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2.


Notable Supreme Court cases in 2011 related to patents
  • Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

The Supreme Court’s 2011 term opened on October 3, 2011, with three notable cases on its docket related to patents.


Two avenues exist for recovering damages for infringement of your design patents
  • Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

Unlike holders of utility patents, owners of design patents have the option of choosing between two different statutes with respect to the recovery of damages for design patent infringement 35 U.S.C. 284 and 289.


Federal Circuit says regulatory patent term extension prolongs life of entire patent
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • November 3 2011

I wrote previously about the patentability issues raised in Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., and Novartis’ ability to rely on unexpected results discovered after the filing date to support non-obviousness.