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 507

“Substantial new question” vs. “reasonable likelihood”: has the difference in legal standard made a difference in practice?
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 19 2013

Under the America Invents Act ("AIA"), what was once the standard used by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to determine whether to institute


Rapid Litigation Management v. Cellzdirect, Inc
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • August 29 2016

The patentee asserted its patent for a process of preserving hepatocytes. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that


Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 2015-5150 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2017

Claims utilizing mathematical equations are not necessarily “doomed” as unpatentable subject matter under 101


Raymond E. Stauffer v. Brooks brothers Group, Inc., No. 2013-1180 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2014

The changes to the false marking statute under the America Invents Act are retroactive; any existing or future plaintiff must be a party that has


Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, No. 2016-1449 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • January 3 2017

A term of degree is not indefinite as “purely subjective” if the intrinsic evidence makes a POSITA reasonably certain of the scope of the invention


Husky Injection Molding Systems v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-1726 and 2015-1727 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2016

Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review PTAB determinations on whether assignor estoppel precludes institution of IPR; incorporation by reference


Failure to raise arguments in patent owner response that were previously raised in the patent owner preliminary response can result in a waiver of those arguments
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 19 2013

If a patent owner raises a certain argument in its patent owner preliminary response, and then fails to make the same argument in its patent owner


PTAB explains circumstances where cross-examination of declarant may be limited to grounds on which trial is instituted
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 9 2013

The PTAB recently clarified the instances in which it might consider a motion to limit the cross-examination of a declarant and when it might not


Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012-1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 24 2013

The assertion of different claims in a subsequent suitwhen those claims all contain a limitation that has already been construed, in the same context


Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. v. Natco Pharma Limited & Natco Pharma, Inc., No. 2013-1418 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2014).
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 30 2014

Patents issuing after, but expiring before, another patent may serve as a double-patenting reference for the later-expiring patent. The patentee