Cases

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant v. APPLE INC., Appellee ______________________ 2016-2523, 2016-2524 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2015-00369, I

ORDER DENYING GPNE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR FOR A NEW TRIAL; DENYING APPLE’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge On October 22, 2014, after seven days of trial and four and a half hours of deliberation, a jury concluded that Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) did not infringe two patents owned by Plaintiff GPNE Corp. (“Plaintiff

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants ________________

ORDER LAPORTE, United States Magistrate Judge. In these related patent actions brought by LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”) against various defendants, numerous motions have been referred to this Court for resolution. First, Apple Computer Inc. (“Apple”) moves to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing LGE’s motion to amend its infringement contentions to include Apple products. For the reasons set forth be

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge This order supersedes ECF No. 107, which has been vacated. Plaintiffs Uniloc USA Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., and Uniloc 2017 LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Defendants LG Electronics USA Inc., LG Electronics Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants infringe claims of

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-1917 UNCOMMON, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPIGEN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK LLC, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC, VERIZON SERVICES CORP., ARRIS GROUP, INC., Appellees ______________________ 2018-1766, 2018-1767

782 F.Supp.2d 911 (2011) MATTEL, INC., v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and Consolidated Actions. Case No. CV 04-9049 DOC (RNBx). United States District Court, C.D. California. January 5, 2011. *940 David M. Stern, Kevin E. Deenihan, Matthew C. Heyn, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, John B. Quinn, Randa A.F. Osman, Rory S. Mille

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTEL, INC., a Delaware  corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant- Appellee, v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; ISAAC LARIAN, an individual, No. 09-55673 Counter-defendants-Appellants, CARTER BRYANT, an individual, 

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTEL, INC., a Delaware  corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant- Appellee, v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; ISAAC LARIAN, an individual, No. 09-55673 Counter-defendants-Appellants, CARTER BRYANT, an individual, 

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTEL, INC., a Delaware  corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant- Appellee, v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; ISAAC LARIAN, an individual, No. 09-55673 Counter-defendants-Appellants, CARTER BRYANT, an individual, 

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. On October 25, 2011, the Court conducted a Markman hearing for the purpose of construing the eight disputed claims in the patent at issue in this case. After careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties, the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing, and the record before the Court, the Court issues this Opinion and

780 F.Supp.2d 196 (2009) CA, INC., Plaintiff, v. SIMPLE.COM, INC., Wired Solutions, LLC., a revoked Nevada LLC, Defendants. No. 02 Civ. 2748 (DRH)(MLO). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 5, 2009. *201 Covington & Burling, by: Samuel F. Ernst, Esq., Robert D. Fram, Esq., Michael M. Markman, Esq., & Leonard

575 F.Supp.2d 513 (2008) WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. and J.K. Rowling, Plaintiffs, v. RDR BOOKS and Does 1-10, Defendants. No. 07 Civ. 9667 (RPP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 8, 2008. *517 O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Attn: Dale Margaret Cendali, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. David S. Hammer, N

318 F.Supp.2d 110 (2004) Anthony V. DEMARCO, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERTSON STEPHENS INC., and Paul Johnson, Defendants. No. 03 Civ. 590(GEL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 9, 2004. *111 *112 *113

105 F.Supp.2d 185 (2000) BIGSTAR ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEXT BIG STAR, INC., Next Big Star L.L.C., Victory Entertainment Corporation and Michael H. Gerber, Defendants. No. 00 Civ. 0911 VM. United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 17, 2000. *186 *187

OPINION WILLIAM B. CAIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., joined. WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., P.J., M.S., filed a concurring opinion. HCA, Inc. appeals the action of the trial court in granting summary judgment to the insurer/ defendants based upon an “inventory exclusion” provision in the policies of insurance. We reverse the

184 F.Supp.2d 991 (2001) In re NORTHPOINT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION And Consolidated Cases. This Document Relates To: All Actions. No. C01-01473 WHA. United States District Court, N.D. California. December 21, 2001. *992 *993 ORDER: (1) GRANTING INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' M

606 F.Supp. 1408 (1985) TEAM CENTRAL INCORPORATED, a corporation of the State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. XEROX CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New York, Defendant. Civ. No. 4-84-318. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division. April 17, 1985. *1409 *1410 David L. B

ACCEPTED 04-14-00807-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/19/2015 3:55:18