Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION and order SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), filed July 3, 2014. After considering the motion, response, reply, summary judgment evidence, record, and applicable law, the court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I. Factual and Procedural Background This is

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER COGAN, District Judge. Before me is the motion of plaintiff FU-JIFILM North America Corporation (“FUJI”) to dismiss the counterclaims of defendant Geleshmall Enterprises LLC (“Geleshmall”) for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. FUJI initiated the main action by filing suit against approximately 15 defendants, as well as unnamed XYZ c

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge. I. Introduction Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Transfer Case (Doc. 4), all accompanying briefs, Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report & Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 15), Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 16), Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 17), and Defendant’s Reply

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ March 9, 2015 ERRATA ______________________ Appeal No. 2014-1110 IN RE PAPST LICENSING DIGITAL CAMERA PATENT LITIGATION ____________________________________________________ PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION (f

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ February 3, 2015 ERRATA ______________________ Appeal No. 2014-1110 IN RE PAPST LICENSING DIGITAL CAMERA PATENT LITIGATION ____________________________________________________ PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION (

OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge. Retail Imaging Management Group, LLC (“RIMG”) brings a federal antitrust lawsuit against its competitor and supplier, Fujifilm North America Corporation (“FUJI”), alleging unlawful monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. RIMG also asserts claims of negligence and intentional interference

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Fujifilm North America Corporation et al. v. Civil No. 20-cv-492-LM Opinion No. 2023 DNH 068 P M&R Printing Equipment, Inc., et al. ORDER Plaintiffs Fujifilm North America Corporation, Fujifilm Specialty Ink Systems Ltd., and Fujifilm Ind

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Fujifilm North America Corporation et al. v. Civil No. 20-cv-492-LM Opinion No. 2021 DNH 040 P M&R Printing Equipment, Inc. et al. ORDER Plaintiffs Fujifilm North America Corporation, Fujifilm Speciality Systems Ltd. and Fujifilm India Pv

Chief Judge Rubén Castillo In this diversity action, Fujifilm North America Corporation ("Plaintiff") alleges that D/C Export & Domestic Packing, Inc. ("Defendant") mishandled a commercial printing machine belonging to Plaintiff while it was stored at Defendant's warehouse in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, resulting in damage to the printer. (R. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 5-14.) Plaintiff asserts a variety of state-law claims against Defendan

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG owns Lf.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 and 6,895,449. The written descriptions are largely the same, the '449 patent having issued on a divisional application carved out of the application that became the '399 patent. The focus of both patents is an ‘interface device for transferring data between an input/output data device and

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge. On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff John J. Weber filed a Third Amended Complaint against FujiFilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (“FMSU”), Hiroaki Tada, FujiFilm Holdings American Corporation (“HLUS”), FujiFilm Holdings Corporation (“FH”),1 and FujiFilm Corporation claiming a variety of causes of ac

RULING ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge. Following a jury trial held May 18 through June 5, 2012, the jury returned a verdict on June 11, 2012 finding Defendant FujiFilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (“FMSU”) liable on Plaintiff John Weber’s claimed breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and finding Defendants FujiFilm Holdings America C

Slip Op. 26-17 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, FUJIFILM CORPORATION, AND FUJIFILM PRINTING PLATE (CHINA) CO. LTD., Plaintiffs, Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge v. Court No. 24-00251 UNITED STATES, Defendant, and EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant-Interv

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-501C (Filed: September 25, 2018) ********************************** ) 3RD EYE SURVEILLANCE, LLC and ) Claims of patent infringement; 28 U.S.C. DISCOVERY PATENTS, LLC, ) § 1498(a); patentability; 35 U.S.C. § 101; ) second step of the Alic

OPINION WILLIAM J. MARTINI, District Judge. The Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that a circuit board defect (the “Defect”) caused their Samsung refrigerators to stop cooling. Plaintiffs assert claims for the violation of various consumer protection laws, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranty. Defendants Samsung Electronics, America, Inc. (“SEA”) and Samsung Electronics, Co.,

469 F.Supp.2d 1269 (2006) AVECIA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Slip Op. 06-184. Court No. 05-00183. United States Court of International Trade. December 19, 2006. *1270 Buchanan Ingersoll PC (Steven R. Bizar, Jill W. Rogers), Philadelphia, PA, Crowell & Moring LLP (Alexander Schaefer), Washington,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Kia America, Inc. v. Civil No. 24-cv-128-LM-AJ Opinion No. 2025 DNH 046 P DMO Auto Acquisitions, LLC et al. ORDER Plaintiff Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) brings this action against a collection of current and former car dealerships and two of the dealer

691 F.Supp.2d 538 (2010) ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., Defendants. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Palm, Inc., et al., Defendants. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc., Plain

*64MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: HEWLETT-PACKARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, a German company, sues multiple manufacturers of digital cameras for alleged infringement of two patents owned by Papst: U.S. Patent Number 6,470,399 (399 Patent) and U.S. Patent Number 6,895,44

OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Impression Products, Inc. (Doc. 335). Plaintiff Lexmark International, Inc. has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 367) and Defendant Impression Products, Inc. has filed a reply (Doc. 368).1 Defendant Impression Products, Inc. subsequently fi