Cases

CHEN, Circuit Judge. Synopsys, Inc. appeals the District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of summary judgment invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,530,841; 5,680,318; and 5,748,488 (collectively, the Gregory Patents) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 78 F.Supp.3d 958 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, AN OREGON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. EVE-USA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, SYNOPSYS EMULATION AND VERIFICATION S.A.S., FORMED UNDER THE LAWS OF FRANCE, SYNOPSYS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2015-1

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 changes the way patent validity disputes are resolved — a change at least as significant for this Nation’s patent system as the formation of the Federal Circuit in 1982. The purpose is as ambitious as it is necessary: to strengthen the incentive to industrial and technological innovation by restructuring the system for reviewing and

MOORE, Circuit Judge. The present appeal arises from litigation in the District of Oregon between Mentor Graphics Corp. (“Mentor”) and Synopsys, Inc., Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A;S., and EVE-USA, Inc. (“EVE”) (collectively, “Synopsys”). 1 Mentor asserted several patents against Synopsys, including U.S. Paten

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAXINE M. CHESNEY, United States District Judge Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment, filed October 3, 2014, by plaintiff Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”) and defendant Mentor Graphics Corporation (“Mentor”), by which the parties set forth their respective positions as to the patent eligibility of eight claims as recited in three patents held by Synopsys,

OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, District Judge. In case no. 12-1500, the second of the three consolidated patent actions captioned above, EVE-USA, Inc., and Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A. (collectively “Synopsys”) move [461]1 to amend their answer to Mentor Graphics Corporation’s (“Mentor Graphics”) complaint. Synopsys seeks to add an affirmative defense and counterclaim a

789 A.2d 1216 (2001) MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, and MGZ Corp., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, et. al., Defendants. Mentor Graphics Corporation, an Oregon corporation, and MGZ Corp., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Keith R. Lobo, et. al., Defendants. Nos. C.A. 16584-NC, C.A. 16843-NC. Court of Cha

77 F.Supp.2d 505 (1999) MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, v. QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and Cadence Design Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Cadence Design Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Counterclaimants, v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, an Oregon corporation, Counterclaim Defendant.

728 A.2d 25 (1998) MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, and MGZ Corp., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Keith R. Lobo, Glen M. Antle, Richard C. Alberding, Michael R. D'Amour, Yen-Son (Paul) Huang, Dr. David K. Lam, William A. Hasler, and Charles D. Kissner, Defendants. Howard Shapiro, Plaintiff, v. Glen M. Antle, Keith R. Lobo, Richard C. Alberding, Michael

999 F.Supp. 1388 (1997) MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, v. QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. No. CV 96-342-RE. United States District Court, D. Oregon. August 15, 1997. *1389 *1390 James T. McDermott, Ball Janik LLP, Portland, O

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by an unsuccessful party to an acquisition contest from a decision of the Court of Chancery rejecting that party’s attempt to secure an award of counsel fees incident to the settlement of a related class action suit attacking the original merger effort. The Court of Chancery denied the appellants’ effort as untimely. We agree and affirm. I This is the latest

Case: 16-17147 Date Filed: 10/08/2019 Page: 1 of 69 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17147 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 4:08-md-02004-CDL, 4:12-cv-00176-CDL TERESA TAYLOR,

269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) APTIX CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,andMETA SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,andMENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, Counterclaim Defendant,v.QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee. 00-1468, -1469 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

485 F.Supp.2d 747 (2007) Narpat BHANDARI, Plaintiff v. CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., et. al., Defendants. No. 6:06 CV 480. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. May 11, 2007. *748 Thomas John Ward, Jr., Law Office of T. John Ward Jr. PC, Andrew Wesley Spangler, Elizabeth L. Derieux, Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III,

369 F.Supp.2d 929 (2004) SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN, INC., Plaintiff, v. Philippe HOUEIX, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 1:02CV490. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. December 21, 2004. *930 Adele Ellen O'Conner, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, Columbus, OH, David J. Stewart, John Patrick Elsevier, Atlan

749 F.Supp. 1042 (1990) ROLEX EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT TRUST, Philip Schmidt, Trustee, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, Thomas H. Bruggere, Gerald H. Langeler, David C. Moffenbeier, Brian C. Henry and Marvin S. Wolfson, Defendants. Civ. No. 90-726-FR. United States District Court, D. Oregon. October 29, 1990.

654 F.Supp.2d 1037 (2009) In re CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Order Relates to: Case Nos. 08-4966 SC, 08-5027 SC, and 08-5273 SC. No. C-08-4966 SC. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 11, 2009. *1039 Karen T. Rogers, Jeff S. Westerman, Milberg LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael M. Goldberg,

RADER, Circuit Judge. On June 14, 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the patent infringement complaint of Aptix Corporation and Meta Systems, Inc., after ruling that Ap-tix’s United States Patent No. 5,544,069 ('069 patent) is unenforceable. The trial court refused to enforce the '069 patent because Aptix submitted falsified engineering notebooks to the court.

721 A.2d 1281 (1998) QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Keith R. Lobo, Glen M. Antle, Richard C. Alberding, Michael R. D'Amour, Yen-Son (Paul) Huang, Dr. David K. Lam, William A. Hasler, and Charles D. Kissner, Defendants below, Appellants, v. Howard SHAPIRO, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Keith R. Lobo, Glen M. Antle, Richard C. Alberding, Michael R. D'Amour, Yen-Son (P

Case: 23-2032 Document: 90 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC., ASTELLAS IRELAND CO., LTD., ASTELLAS PHARMA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SANDOZ INC., ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD., DBA ZYDUS CADILA, LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICAL