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 64

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


Where an ambiguous disclosure otherwise might have sufficed to support an earlier priority date, contrary arguments made to persuade an examiner to allow the application may preclude the priority claim
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the accused infringer, holding that a patent issuing on a continuation-in-part application related to collapsible storage containers was not entitled to an earlier filing date because material claimed had been disclaimed during prosecution of the priority patent by patentee’s attorney


For purposes of determining patent term extension under 35 U.S.C 156, an enantiomer has consistently been recognized, by the FDA and the PTO, as a different “drug product” from its racemate
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2010

The patent-in-suit covered an antimicrobial compound having the common name levofloxacin, and is the levorotatory enantiomer of the racemate ofloxacin, which is a known antimicrobial product




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


A patentee’s rights are only exhausted by a sale within the United States
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The patent involved single use cameras


Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc v Universal Security Instruments, Inc, 2009-1421
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

Whether the inventorship of the patents as issued is correct does not determine the materiality of the statements in this case, just as whether concealed prior art would actually invalidate the patent is irrelevant to materiality