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 206

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


Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2011

The Federal Circuit held that the evidence of the patentee’s litigation misconduct and objectively-baseless lawsuit filed without reasonable pre-suit investigation properly supported the district court’s finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and warranted Rule 11 sanctions


McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, No. 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Method claims reciting specific means or improvements to the art are patentable, while method claims directed to abstract results or effects using


SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histrogen Inc., No. 2012-1560 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

Patent prosecution history and specification were held to implicitly redefine the terms of a claim


University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V., Case No. 2012-1540, -1541, -1661 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over a suit to correct inventorship between a State University and officials from another State


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


Awards of costs under 28 U.S.C. 1920 for electronic discovery expenses are limited to the steps necessary to produce the documents in the form demanded by the requesting party
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

In August 2007, the patentee sued for patent infringement. The district court granted summary judgment against the patentee. The accused infringers


A Section 337 exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission may not be based on induced infringement where the accused products do not infringe until after importation
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2013

A complainant accused certain optical scanning devices of infringing its patents. After an investigation, the International Trade Commission issued


Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes AS., No. 2013-1214 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 19 2014

An alleged infringer may bring a declaratory judgment action even if no litigation is pending or threatened when a "substantial risk" of litigation


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