Cases

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

645 F.3d 1311 (2011) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and Micron Electronics, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant. No. 2009-1263. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. May 13, 2011. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc De

433 B.R. 547 (2010) In re QIMONDA AG BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION. Micron Technology, Inc., Appellant, v. Qimonda AG, et al., Appellees. Elpida Memory, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Qimonda AG, et al., Appellees. Nanya Technology Corp., Appellant, v. Qimonda AG, et al., Appellees. Nos. 1:10cv26, 1:10cv27, 1:10cv28. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

MEMORANDUM OPINION DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge. Presently pending and ready for review in this declaratory judgment action are several motions, including: (1) the motion of Plaintiff Innovative Therapies, Inc. (“ITI” or “Plaintiff’) for a protective order (ECF No. 21); (2) Plaintiffs motion to modify a subpoena (ECF No. 24); (3) the motion of Defendant Mark S. Meents (“Meents” or “Defendant”) for ext

4 F.Supp.2d 17 (1998) MEDIACOM CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. RATES TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 97-10559-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. April 16, 1998. *18 *19 *20 Steven M. Bauer, Joseph A. Capraro, Robert N. Feldman, Te

STARK, U.S. District Judge Plaintiff Align Technology, Inc. ("Align") filed four separate suits against Defendants 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. (together, "3Shape" or "Defendants") on November 14, 2017. On February 2, 2018, 3Shape moved to dismiss the complaints in Civil Action Nos. 17-1646-LPS-CJB and 17-1647-LPS-CJB (the "Complaints") for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), based on its c

645 F.3d 1336 (2011) HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd.; and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GMBH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. Nos. 2009-1299, 2009-1347. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. May 13, 2011. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 29, 2011.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge Plaintiff Chamberlain Group, Inc. ("Chamberlain") won a jury verdict against Defendants Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., *986OWT Industries, Inc., Et Technology (WUXI) Co. Ltd., and Ryobi Technologies (collectively, "TTI"), in which the jury fou

MEMORANDUM ORDER Christopher J. Burke, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant Munchkin, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Munehkin”) “Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Panitch, Schwarze, Belisario & Nadel LLP” (the “Motion”). (D.I. 18) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background</

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ROY S. PAYNE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Alacritech, Inc. (Plaintiff) (Dkt. No. 181, filed on April 4, *8572017),1 the response of Tier 3, Inc., Sawis Communications Corp., CenturyLink Communications LLC, D

ORDER ON THE MANUFACTURERS’ DAUBERT MOTION No. 1 TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MURPHY ON SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. Rambus has accused the Manufacturers1 of infringing various patents. Trial is scheduled for January 19, 2009. Pursuant to a case management deadline for filing Daubert motions, the Manufacturers

609 F.Supp.2d 951 (2009) HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH, Plaintiffs, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. No. C-00-20905 RMW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. February 23, 2009. *954 Allen Ruby, Law Offices

(2008) RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Defendants. Rambus Inc., Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MAYER, in which Circuit Judges NEWMAN, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST join. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA, in which Circuit Judge NEWMAN joins. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. MAYER, Circuit Judge. Seagate Technology, LLC (“Seagate”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United Stat

ORDER RE: INDEFINITENESS LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. In this patent case, a jury found that Samsung had infringed several of Apple’s patents, including Claim 50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,168 (“the '163 Patent”) and four design patents: No. D618,677 (“the D'677 Patent”); No. D593,087 (“the D'087 Patent”); No. D604,305 (“the D'305 Patent”); and No. D504,889 (“the D'889 Patent”). Samsung now argues that Clai

623 F.Supp.2d 579 (2009) ASTRAZENECA LP and Astrazeneca AB, Plaintiffs, v. APOTEX, INC. and Apotex Corp., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-1518 (RMB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. May 14, 2009. *583 Andrew T. Berry, Esquire, Mark H. Anania, Esquire, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ. Denise L. Loring,

MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, District Judge: Pending before the ■ Court are: (1) a Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively, to Strike the Third Party Complaint (D.I. 16),1 filed by putative third party defendants Noam Danenberg, Just4Fit Israel, Ltd., Mavidex Ltd. d/b/a Blue Bird Surf & Urban, and Ofer Michalovski (collectively, “TP Defendants”); and (2) a Motion to Co

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GIBSON, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on Bed-ford Reinforced Plastics, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Bedford”) Motion to Compel 1) The Production of Documents Based on Waiver of Privilege and 2) The Continued Deposition Once the Underlying Documents are Produced. (Document No. 88-1). Upon consideration of Bedford’s motion, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.’s

641 F.Supp.2d 793 (2009) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SONOSITE, INC., Defendant. No. 08-cv-298-bbc. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. May 26, 2009. *798 Allen Arntsen, Jeffrey A. Simmons, Justin Edwin Gray, Foley & Lardner LLP, Madison, WI, Jennifer Sklenar, Howrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew Wolf, Sa

(2008) TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Fournier Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., Counterclaim Defendants. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., Counterclaim Defendants. In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. In re