Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, No. 26-1444 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:25-cv-09514- MMC v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., OPINION Defendan

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-2614 ______________ ROBERT HARPER v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Appellant ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court

USCA11 Case: 19-13285 Date Filed: 06/28/2022 Page: 1 of 46 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-13285 ____________________ WREAL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant,

USCA11 Case: 19-13285 Date Filed: 06/28/2022 Page: 1 of 46 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-13285 ____________________ WREAL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant,

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. This appeal is related to the appeal in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV et al., No. 2015-1845, 838 F.3d 1253, 2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. 2016), decided today. Although the patents at issue to the two cases are different, they share a similar specification. Because the legal issues presented in the two cases are closely related, o

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 18-1041 ____________ HEATHER R. OBERDORF; MICHAEL A. OBERDORF, her husband, Appellants v. AMAZON.COM INC., a Washington Corporation On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pen

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-1361 TANYA N. SVOBODA and ANTONELLA M. ORTIZ COLOSI, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMAZON.COM INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States

ROTH, Circuit Judge: On January 12, 2015, Heather Oberdorf returned home from work, put a retractable leash on her dog, and took the dog for a walk. Unexpectedly, the dog lunged, causing the D-ring on the collar to break and the leash to recoil back and hit Oberdorf's face and eyeglasses. As a result, Oberdorf is permanently blind in her left eye. Oberdorf bought the collar on Amazon.com. As a resul

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BROADBAND ITV, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-1107 _________________

Filed 8/13/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANGELA BOLGER, D075738 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00003009-CU-PL-CTL) AMAZON.COM, LLC, Defendant a

Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BROADBAND ITV, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-1107 _________________

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-1361 TANYA N. SVOBODA and ANTONELLA M. ORTIZ COLOSI, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMAZON.COM INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States D

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-CV-0657 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLANT, V. AMAZON.COM, INC.

GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge: On January 30, 2013 and April 19, 2013, Plaintiff Dean Nicosia went on Amazon.com and placed orders of 1 Day Diet, a product marketed as a weight-loss supplement, which contained the harmful compound sibutramine. The account from which these purchases were made was held in his wife's name and was previously

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On May 24, 2013, plaintiff Cloud Satchel (“plaintiff’) instituted suit against defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) and defendant Barnes & Noble, Inc. (“Barnes & Noble”) (collectively, “defendants”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,862,321 (“the '321 patent”) and 6,144,997 (“the '997 patent

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (D.I. 86). The matter has been fully briefed. (D.I. 87, 103, 106, 134, 138). The Court heard oral argument on February 27, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Personalized Media

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On August 8, 2011, plaintiff Technology Innovations, LLC (“Tl”) filed suit in this district against defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) alleging infringement of *616two patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,517,407 (“the '407 patent”) and 7,429,965 (“the '965 patent”). (D.I.1)

CLAY , Circuit Judge . Plaintiffs Charles Brian and Megan Fox, individually and as parents and next friends of their minor children Hailey, Matthew, Rebecca, and Sarah Fox, appeal the district court's May 30, 2018 order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendant (1) sold Plaint

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Charles Brian and Megan Fox, individually and as parents and next friends of their minor children Hailey, Matthew, Rebecca, and Sarah Fox, appeal the district court's May 30, 2018 order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendant (1) sold Plaintiff Megan Fox a defective or unreasonably dang

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: *338Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 35). The issues are fully briefed. (D.I. 36, 37, 45). The Court held oral argument on November 16, 2018.1 (D.I. 51). For the reasons that follow, the Court grant