Cases

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, United States District Judge Before the Court are the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan") seeks summary judgment that Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s ("Blue Coat") Internet security software products infringe one of its patents and that several of its patents are not invalid. Blue Coat seeks summary judgment that certain of its products do not infringe several

ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION . In this patent case, plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) accuses Sophos, Inc. (“Sophos”) of infringing five of Finjan’s patents in the malware security software space. Following a two week trial, a jury found that Sophos infringed all five of Finjan’s asserted patents and awarded damages of $15

*979ORDER ON: (1) RADWARE’S MOTION TO STRIKE; (2) F5’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; (3) F5’S MOTION TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS; (4) F5’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; (5) RADWARE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY; (6) RADWARE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; (7) RADWARE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT; (8) F5’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-IN

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AlO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. On May 3, 2012, Defendants Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, and Steve Hwang (collectively, the “Individual A10 Defendants”) and A10 Networks, Inc. (“A10”; collectively “A10 Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment (“AlO’s Mot.”). Defendant David Cheung joined that motion. On May 17, 201

Case: 20-2044 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. APPLE INC., VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2020-2044 ______________________ Appeal from the United

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 39 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Software Research, Inc. ("SRI") initiated this patent infringement suit against Defendant Dynatrace LLC ("Dynatrace"), alleging that Dynatrace has directly, indirectly, and willfully in

Case: 19-2041 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC., NETSCOUT SYSTEMS TEXAS, LLC, FKA TEKTRONIX TEXAS, LLC DBA TEKTRONIX COMMUNICATIONS, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2019-2

Case: 20-1413 Document: 98 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2020-1413 ______________________ Appeal from the United States D

Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CARDIONET, LLC, BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INFOBIONIC, INC, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2019-1149 ______________________

Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE INTRODUCTION "We must think things not words, or at least we must constantly translate our words into the facts for which they stand, if we are to keep to the real and the true." Holmes, Law in Science and Science in Law, in Collected Legal Papers (1920) The purpose of modern

646 F.3d 869 (2011) TIVO INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, EchoStar DBS Corporation, EchoStar Technologies Corporation, EchoSphere Limited Liability Company, EchoStar Satellite LLC, and Dish Network Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. No. 2009-1374. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. April 20, 2011. *873</

Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. FOX CORP., FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC, FOX SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-2437 _________________

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: *338Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 35). The issues are fully briefed. (D.I. 36, 37, 45). The Court held oral argument on November 16, 2018.1 (D.I. 51). For the reasons that follow, the Court grant

Case: 18-2239 Document: 96 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CUSTOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant v. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, DISH NETWORK LLC, Appellees ______________________ 2018-2239 ______________

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ERICSSON, INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, AND WI-FI ONE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., NETGEAR, INC., ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, AND GATEWAY, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND DELL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND TOSHIBA AMER

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiff Immersion Corporation ("Immersion") filed a patent infringement suit *1010against Defendant Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit"). Immersion alleges that Fitbit infringes claims of U.S. Patent No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. The following motions are before the Court: • Apple’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b). or, in the alternative, for a New Trial or a Remittitur (Docket No. 623); • VirnetX’s Motion for Post-Verdict Damages to the Time of Judgment, Pre-Judgment Interest, and Post-

*1017ORDER RE: WILLFULNESS AND ENHANCED DAMAGES Re: Dkt. Nos, 2186, 2191 LUCY H.' KOH, United States District Judge On May 5, 2014, after a thirteen-day trial and approximately four days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict, which included a finding of willful infringement'of one of Apple’s patents, U.S

OPINION STARK, U.S. District Judge: Presently before the Court is Defendants Cook Group Incorporated (“CGI”) and Cook Medical LLC’s (“Cook Medical”) (collectively, “Defendants” or “Cook”) motion to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer venue in fight of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1514, 197 L.Ed.2d 816 (

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,838,906 (the “'906 Patent”) and 7,599,985 (the “'985 Patent”). The Court further DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (Docket No. 568). BACKGROUND Patents-In-Suit