Cases

Reyna, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur with my colleague Judge O'Malley's opinion that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") erred in its determination that RPX's petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") are not time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). But I also conclude

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The America Invents Act permits but does not require the district court to stay earlier-filed litigation during later-requested post-grant PTO proceedings. Such a stay is not obligatory, but is consigned to the district court’s discretion. During consideration of the proposed post-grant review legislation, there was extensive debate about the relation between concurrent infri

ACCEPTED 15-25-00109-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2025 5:08 PM NO. __-__-______-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

ACCEPTED 15-25-00020-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/17/2025 7:29 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN. Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL. CHEN, Circuit Judge. These related appeals arise from five Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews of five patents owned by Blue Calypso, LLC (Blue Calypso): U.S. Patent No. 7,664,516 (the '516 patent), U.S. Patent No. 8,155,679 (the '679 patent), U.S. Patent No. 8,457,670 (the '670 patent), U.S.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 117. in C 12-cv-6293 SI and Dkt. No. 141 in C 12-cv-6294 SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge On December 2, 2014, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity of plaintiffs patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants’

597 F.Supp.2d 1006 (2009) REARDEN LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REARDEN COMMERCE, INC., Defendant. No. C 06-07367 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. January 27, 2009. *1011 Jason A. Yurasek, Perkins Coie LLP, Monty Agarwal, Ronald L. Johnston, Trenton Herbert Norris, Arnold & Porter, Rachel Lena Chanin, San Fra

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. This Memorandum Opinion construes U.S. Patent No. 6,067,525 (the "`525 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,941,341 (the "`341 Patent"). Also before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Indefiniteness (Case No. 6:11cv52, Docket No. 338 and Case No. 6:09cv340, Docket No. 433). For the reasons discussed below, the Cour

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-1351 (Filed: 6 March 2023 *) *************************************** MLINQS, LLC, * * Plaintiff, * * Pre-Award Bid Protest; Post-Cancellation v. *

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE, an individual, No. 24-475 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-02093- ODW-PD v. GRINDR INC.; GRINDR LLC, OPINION Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Un

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IRONHAWK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a No. 19-56347 Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01481- v. DDP-JEM DROPBOX, INC., a Delaware corporation, ORDER AND Defendant-Appellee. AMENDED

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IRONHAWK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a No. 19-56347 Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01481- v. DDP-JEM DROPBOX, INC., a Delaware corporation, OPINION Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TINA TURRIETA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant and Respondent; MILLION SEIFU et al., Movants and Appellants. S271721 Second Appellate District, Division Four B304701 Los Angeles County S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEDGEYE RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 16-935 (RDM) PAUL HELDMAN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is the third round of dispositive motions practice in a contentious dispute between an investment research firm, He

OPINION & ORDER SWEET, District Judge. Pursuant to the transfer order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”), entered on October 4, 2012, 41 actions stemming from the May 18, 2012 initial public offering (“IPO”) of Facebook, Inc. (“Face-book” or the “Company”) are presently before this Court. The instant motion relates to Plai

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 5, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00617-CV MARK SMITH, MARK & TAMMY SMITH, LLC, TEE DANIEL, AND DARIN KIDD, Appellants V. NERIUM INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE INTRODUCTION “Plaintiff is a professional class-action plaintiff who regularly works with [Law Firm of] Anderson & Wanca to file TCPA cases.” Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Doctor Diabetic Supply, LLC, 2014 WL 7366255, at *7 (S.D. Fla. 2014).1 The plaintiff has

In the United States Court of Federal Claims BID PROTEST No. 19-1064C (Filed Under Seal: October 25, 2019 | Reissued: November 12, 2019) ∗ ) HARMONIA HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, ) Keywords: Bid Protest; Federal Supply ) Schedule; Market Research; Follow-on Pla

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION and ) LIGHTEDGE HOLDINGS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0710-JRS ) BROWN ROBIN CAPITAL, LLC, ) SIERRA TWO INTERNET, INC., ) LUCAS BRAUN, RYAN ROBINSON, ) JACK D’ANGELO, BOBBY BOUGHTON ) and MICHAEL SMERKLO, )

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AVANDE, INC., a Delaware corporation ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0203-AGB ) SHAWN EVANS and DC RISK ) SOLUTIONS, INC., ) ) Defenda