Cases

661 F.3d 1361 (2011) In re RICOH COMPANY, LTD. PATENT LITIGATION. Synopsys, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricoh Company, Ltd., Defendant-Appellant. Ricoh Company, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aeroflex Incorporated, AMI Semiconductor, Inc., Matrox Electronic Systems, Ltd., Matrox Graphics, Inc., Matrox International, Inc., Matrox Tech, Inc., and Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 2011-1

*955JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON CAMERA MANUFACTURERS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge. In this Multi District Litigation (“MDL”), 1 Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. (“Papst”) has alleged that digital camera manufacturers that sell prod

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ IN RE KATZ INTERACTIVE CALL PROCESSING PATENT LITIGATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ IN RE BILL OF LADING TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING SYSTEM PATENT LITIGATION __________________________ R+L CARRIERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRIVERTECH LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and PEOPLENET COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, QUALCOMM, INC., AND MICRODEA, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC) MDL Docket No. 1880 This Document Relates To: The First Wave Cases -- Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst, 07-cv-1118; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 07-cv-1222; Papst v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC) MDL Docket No. 1880 This Document Relates To: The First Wave Cases -- Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst, 07-cv-1118; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 07-cv-1222; Papst v.

486 F.Supp.2d 395 (2007) RICOH COMPANY, LTD., Ricoh Corporation and Ricoh Electronics, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. KATUN CORPORATION, PNA Holdings LLC, General Plastics Industrial Co., Ltd., and Nashua Corporation, Defendants. Civ. No. 03-2612(WHW). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. May 3, 2007. *396

MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Energy Insurance Mutual Limited (“EIM”) moved to transfer the present dispute over insurance coverage to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, citing a contractual forum-selection clause and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The district court 1 granted the motion. Union Elect

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER, District Judge . Before this Court are Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Nos. 1-14 in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 42), Defendant’s Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 48), Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 49), and Defendant’s Sur-Reply thereto (Doe. No, 50). For the reasons outlined in this me

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On March 25, 2013, plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I, LLC (“IV”) and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (“IVH”) filed a complaint alleging patent infringement1 *675against defendants Ricoh Company, Ltd. (“RCL”), Ricoh Americas Corporation (“RAC”), an

817 F.Supp. 473 (1993) RICOH COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL, INC. and Keer Electrical Supply Co., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-4970 (AJL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 16, 1993. *474 *475 Frederick L. Whitmer, Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, Morristown, NJ, and Ku

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On October 4, 2012, plaintiff Telecomm Innovations, LLC (“plaintiff’) filed this patent infringement action against defendants Ricoh Company, Ltd. (“Ricoh”), Ricoh Americas Corporation (“Ricoh Americas”), Lanier Worldwide, Inc. (“Lanier”), *392and Savin Corporation (“Savin”

515 F.Supp.2d 544 (2007) In re AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING PAINT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MDL Docket No. 1426. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 8, 2007. *546 MEMORANDUM & ORDER R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge. Presently before the Court are Defendants Sherwin-Williams Company and PPG In

Case: 21-1638 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ KANNUU PTY LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1638 ______________________

670 F.Supp.2d 16 (2009) In re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION. This Document Relates to the First Wave Cases—Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst, 07-cv-1118; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 07-cv-1222; Papst v. Olympus Corp., 07-cv-2086; Papst v. Samsung Techwin Co., 07-cv-2088; Papst v. Ricoh Co. Ltd., 07-cv-612; Hewlett Packard Co. v. Papst, 08-cv-865; and Papst

624 F.Supp.2d 54 (2009) In Re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: The First Wave Cases— Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst, 07-cv-1118; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Papst, No. 07-cv-1222; Papst v. Olympus Corp., No. 07-cv-2086; Papst v. Samsung Techwin Co., No. 07-cv-2088; Papst v. Ricoh Co. Ltd., No. 07-cv-612; Hewlett Packard Co. v. Papst, No. 08-cv-865; and Papst v. Nikon Corp., No.

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Ever wonder what makes your bath bubbly? Our effervescent personal-care products, responds Tower Laboratories, Ltd., in this patent-infringement suit against nine entities affiliated with Lush Cosmetics Limited. Three Lush companies now move to dismiss for improper venue, and the remaining six separately ask that the case against them be transferred to the District of Connecticut. Agre

ORDER RE. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES WARE, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Mformation Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff’) brings this action against Defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,970,917 (“the '917 Patent”). The '917 Patent pertains to a method, system and com