Cases

MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS, United States District Judge Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Declare This Case Exceptional Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. (D.I. 329). I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company brought suit against Defendants Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast IP Phone, LLC al

JUDGMENT Pei* Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER John W. Lungstrum, United States District Judge These patent cases, consolidated for pretrial purposes, brought by plaintiff Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”), come before the Court on various motions to exclude expert testimony.1 As more fully set forth below, the Court rules as follows: Sprint’s motion to exclude testimony by TWC expert Putna

MEMORANDUM DuBOIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs and counterclaim-defendants, Comcast Communications, LLC and related corporate entities (collectively “Com-cast”), brought this action against defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs, Sprint *594Communications Co., LP and related corporate entities (collecti

MEMORANDUM DuBois, J. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 124 II. RENEWED MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.. .-126 A. Standard of Review... 126 B. Comcast’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law That Claim 113 of the ’870 Patent is Not Obvious... 127 1. Applicable Law.. .127 2. Su

MEMORANDUM DuBois, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This case involves claims of patent infringement between Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and related entities (collectively “Comcast”), and Sprint Communications Company, L.P., and related entities (collectively “Sprint”). After withdrawal of several claims of infringement, what remained in the case were Comcast’s claim for infringem

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join virtually all of Chief Judge Bris-coe’s thorough, persuasive opinion. But, I respectfully dissent on Part IV(A)(2). There, the majority rejects the Petitioners’ challenge to the sufficiency of the budget for the Universal Service Fund. On this limited issue, I respectfully dissent. In my view, the FC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER John W. Lungstrum, United States District Judge This patent infringement case was tried to a jury in this Court from February 13, 2017, through March 3, 2017. By its verdict, the jury found the following: that Time Warner Cable1 infringed each of the *1138asserted claims of the five Sprint paten

Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. *1226PROST, Chief Judge. Sprint Communication Company LP and its affiliates (collectively, “Sprint”) appeal from a final decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,633,561; 7

ORDER JOHN A. JARVEY, Chief Judge, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Mediacom has historically offered its customers the ability to make telephone calls over the Internet. That technology is called “Voice over Internet Protocol,” or VoIP. One difficulty with VoIP is that traffic sent over the internet is formatted differently than traffic sent over ordinary telephone lines.1 Wit

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Beach TV Cable Co., Inc. d/b/a Key TV (“Key TV”), a local over-the-air broadcaster serving the Florida Keys, brought this action in federal district court against Comcast of Florida/Georgia, LLC (“Comcast”), which owns and operates a cable television system serving the same area. Pursuant to federal law, Key TV is entitled to lease access on a Com-cast channel at a reasonable rate and free

Order on Petitions for Rehearing Oct. 14, 1997 1. The petitions for rehearing filed by AT&T Corporation, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, America’s Carriers Telecommunications Association, Cable & Wireless, WorldCom, Inc., Competitive Telecommunications Association, Sprint Corporation, Telecommunications Resellers Association, Frontier Corporation, Competition Policy Institute, Association for Local Telecomm

649 F.3d 695 (2011) CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents National Cable & Telecommunications Association, et al., Intervenors. Nos. 10-1062, 10-1088. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued February 14, 2011. Decided June 10, 2011.

555 F.3d 270 (2009) VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Petitioners v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents Qwest Communications International Inc., et al., Intervenors. No. 08-1234. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued December 5, 2008. Decided February 10, 2009.

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiffs Jamie Martin and Daneisha Singleton bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. (“FLSA”), and the New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 650, et. seq. (“NYLL”). Plaintiffs served as field agents securin

594 F.3d 1149 (2010) NORTH COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CATALOG & TECHNOLOGY, d/b/a CTT Telecomms (OCN 573B), Defendant, TGEC Communications Co. LLC, CA (OCN 5969); United States Cellular Corp-California, (OCN 6261); GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, Inc., (OCN 6339); Arch Wireless Holdings, Inc., (OCN 6630); El Dorado Cellular, d/b/a Mountain Cellular (OCN 6980); Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc., (OCN 7219); The Othe

HULL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant James Pendergast, a former wireless telephone customer of Defendants-Appellees Sprint Solutions, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum, L.P., (collectively, “Sprint”), sued Sprint on behalf of himself and a similarly situated class, alleging Sprint charged improper roaming fees for calls placed within Sprint’s coverage areas. Sprint moved to compel

592 F.3d 1119 (2010) James PENDERGAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-10612. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. January 4, 2010. *1120 Douglas F.

656 F.Supp.2d 565 (2009) TIME WARNER CABLE INFORMATION SERVICES (NORTH CAROLINA), LLC, Plaintiff, v. L. Calvin DUNCAN, in his official capacity as Chairman and Member of the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority, et al., Defendants. No. 5:08-CV-202-D. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. September 23, 2009.

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judge: INTRODUCTION This appeal requires us to determine whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”), Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified in part at 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-261), obligates former telecommunications monopolists, known as Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILECs”), to provide a connection service known a