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 138

Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Even if a structure corresponding to a means plus function claim is known in the prior art, it must still be disclosed in the patent’s specification in order to adequately claim the function


Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Product Company, 2011-1291, 2012-1046, -1057, -1087, -1088 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2013

Patentee's profit in the face of infringement does not prevent permanent injunction; "25 rule of thumb" and profit-margin ceilings for royalties


Regents of the University of Minnesota v. ADA Medical Corp., No. 2012-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2013

An earlier prosecution disclaimer applies to a later application so long as the two have the same or closely related claim limitation language


Arkema Inc., et. Al., v. Honeywell International, Inc.
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment where the patentee's conduct puts it in the position of pursuing arguably illegal conduct or


Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solution, Inc. et. Al., no. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 26 2012

A broad patent license, without language to the contrary, extends to reissue patents that are granted after the term of the license agreement. The


Norgren, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2011-1349 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A patentee appealed the International Trade Commission’s determination that an accused infringer’s importation and sale of clamp devices did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930


Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., et al., Nos. 11-1355, -1356, -1357, -1358, -1359 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2012

A patentee's proposed claim construction was found to be objectively baseless as a matter of law, justifying Rule 11 sanctions and potentially a fee award


Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

A claim construction must not exclude the preferred embodiments, the possibility of altering an accused device to meet claim limitations does not


The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 2011-1576 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

Under Section 102(g), in order to invalidate a patent claim on the ground of prior inventorship, an alleged infringer must prove either that it conceived of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice or that it reduced its invention to practice before the critical date of the patent-at-issue


Motiva, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2012-1252 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2013).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2013

In an ITC proceeding, previous litigation of a patent by the complainant does not constitute a substantial investment in licensing to satisfy the