Cases

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 86.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and/or Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. #337). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies Defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant

734 F.Supp.2d 220 (2010) Ramon RODRIGUEZ and Linda Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-11028-NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 16, 2010. *222 Alan L. Cantor, Edward M. Swartz, Swartz & Swartz, Boston, MA, for Linda Rodriguez and Ramon Rodriguez, (Pl

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL (Re: Docket Nos. 3212, 3213) PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge Day 1,449 in this case. *237Following remand by the district judge on two issues arising out of the undersigned’s January 29, 2014 sanctions order, Plaintiff Apple Inc., Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et

440 F.Supp.2d 495 (2006) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. No. CIV.A. 3:05CV406. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. July 25, 2006. *496 Brian C. Riopelle, Esquire, Robert M. Tyler, Esquire, McGuire Woods, LLP, Harris D. Butler, Esquire, Charles L. Williams, Esquire,

398 F.Supp.2d 470 (2005) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. RAMBUS, INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 3:05CV406. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. November 8, 2005. *471 Harris Dewey Butler, III, Charles Lewis Williams, James Curie Skilling, Butler Williams & Skilling PC, Brian Charles Riopel

OPINION and ORDER TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), moves for judgment on the agency record contesting defendant United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination in Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,

386 F.Supp.2d 708 (2005) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 3:05CV406. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. September 14, 2005. *709 *710 Harris Dewey Butler, III, Charles Lewis Williams, James Curie Skilling, Butler Willi

439 F.Supp.2d 524 (2006) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 3:05CV406. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. July 18, 2006. *525 *526 *527 Harris Dewey Butler, III, Charles Lewis William

ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF DISPOSITIVE MATTER REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Samsung moves for relief from portions of Magistrate Judge Grewal’s July 24, 2012 Order Granting-in-Part Apple’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Jury Instruction. See

Case: 22-1873 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., CHILISIN AMERICA LTD., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2022-1873 _____________

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court following a Markman hearing, conducted for the purpose of construing nine disputed claim terms in the patents-in-suit. After careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing, the Court issues the following Opinion and Order detailing th

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. Before the Court are the parties’ post-trial motions. Having considered the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, the Court: DENIES Samsung’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law that: (1) Samsung Does Not Infringe Any Claim of the Patents-in-Suit; (2) the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are Invalid; (3) Samsung is No

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is currently before the Court on two motions filed by plaintiff Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or ‘VIS”) regarding a counterclaim advanced by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung” or “Defendants”). ECF Nos. 141,

181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999) LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,v.SONY CORPORATION AND SONY ELECTRONICS INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, AND MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC CORPORATION, NEC AMERICA, INC., NEC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CANON, INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., TOSHIBA CORP., TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SY

266 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MATSUSHITA ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CANON U.S.A., INC., CANON, INC., FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD., FUJI PHOTO FILM U.S.A., INC., GOLD STAR ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL, GOLDSTAR CO., LTD., HITACHI HOME ELECTRONICS (AMERICA), INC., HITACHI, LTD., KOKOS COLOR TV, INC., MITSUBIS

931 F.Supp. 1044 (1996) LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, LTD., et al., Defendants. LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., et al., Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 91-5056-ARR, 92-0128-ARR. United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 16, 1996.

OPINION PARSONS, Vice Chancellor. This action arises out of a dispute between a Netherlands holding company, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips N.V.” or “Defendant”), which controls a large, international business organization with hundreds of subsidiaries, and an Italian businessman, Carlo Vichi (“Vichi” or “Plaintiff’), who is the managing shareholder and founder of a large television manufac

444 F.Supp.2d 68 (2006) MINEBEA CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Georg PAPST, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 97-0590 (PLF). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 17, 2006. *69 *70 *71 *72

(2008) POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. BCD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION and Shanghai SIM-BCD Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Defendants. Civ. No. 07-633-JJF-LPS. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 11, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. ("PI") is a