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 65

Licenses do not necessarily run concurrently with agreements: later-formed subsidiaries of a licensee are included within the original vesting of rights if so provided by the agreement
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 10 2009

In a cross-license agreement, each party granted two licenses to the other party and its subsidiaries


Federal Circuit patent decision summaries
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • November 24 2009

To be anticipatory, a prior art reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation


Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. et al. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC et al., no. 2009-1357 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2010).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2010

For the purposes of determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for summary judgment, a court should disregard affidavits that are directly contradicted by deposition testimony or that are made without personal knowledge in order to create a genuine issue of material fact


The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 5 2010

35 U.S.C. 292 requires a penalty for falsely marking articles with a patent or patent number on a per article basis, rather than for each decision to falsely mark


In an interference proceeding, the board must interpret the copied claim in view of the originating disclosure for a written description challenge and in view of the host disclosure for a validity challenge based on prior art
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The senior party provoked an interference with the junior party by copying the claims of the junior party’s patent into the senior party’s application


Although reluctant to exclude an embodiment, the court must “not allow the disclosed embodiment to outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence”
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

In a patent interference appeal, the district court construed the claim terms and found that the junior party’s patent did not overlap with, and was not obvious in light of the senior party’s application, and was therefore patentably distinct


In determining inequitable conduct, the withholding of a “highly material” reference alone is not sufficient to establish intent to deceive the Patent Office
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The accused infringer alleged that patentee’s failure to disclose an article to the examiner rendered the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct


No “prudential reasons” or perceived increases in efficiency can trump the lack of a case or controversy brought about by a covenant not to sue that extinguishes all current and future claims
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The alleged infringer brought a declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement of two patents


A patent’s preamble limits the invention only if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The patent-in-suit related to technology intended to decrease the time needed to decode digital television transmissions


Malpractice claims against patent attorneys necessarily rely on federal law because the fiduciary duties owed by patent counsel are governed by federal statutes and the manual of patent examination procedure
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The initial controversy before the district court concerned fifteen claims made by the plaintiff-inventorunder a combination of federal and state lawagainst his former patent counsel and employer, alleging the improper listing of a co-inventor on the patent application and improper legal representation of that individual due to the conflicting interests of the plaintiff