Cases

*700OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 332) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 328) TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction This is a breach of contract ease that involves the liquid en

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge O'Malley. Reyna, Circuit Judge. *1064 This appeal arises from a patent infringement suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Defendant-Appellant Unifrax I LLC appeals from the district court's claim

389 F.Supp.2d 1325 (2004) DEFAULT PROOF CREDIT CARD SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. d/b/a The Home Depot, et al., Defendants. No. 03-CV-20094. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. September 30, 2004. *1326 *1327 *1328

John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge Plaintiff Uncommon, LLC sued Defendant Spigen, Inc. for using the trademarked term "Capsule" in the names of its cell phone cases, the same product that Plaintiff sells under the Capsule mark. Plaintiff brings claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act,

237 F.Supp.2d 376 (2002) TUFENKIAN IMPORT/EXPORT VENTURES, INC., Plaintiff, v. EINSTEIN MOOMJY, INC., Bashian Brothers, Inc., A.L. Meyers Furniture, Central Carpet Co., Kenneth L. Mink & Sons, Inc., Home Depot, Inc., Michael Nichols-Marcy, and Noreen Seabrook Marketing, Inc., Defendants. No. 99 CIV. 11182(WHP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 22, 2002.

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Prostar Wireless Group, LLC ("Prostar") seeks to hold Domino's Pizza1 ("Domino's") accountable for the years of work it spent developing a custom GPS driver tracking system ("the Solution") for Domino's franchisees. Prostar argues that despite a lengthy collaboration, Domino's refused to honor its si

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 8, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-1571 Lower Tribunal No. 18-36746 ________________ The Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc., Appel

MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, U.S. District Judge: Pending before the Court are Defendants Alberee Products, Inc. (“Alberee”), API Korea Co., Ltd. (“API”), and Saver Automotive Products, Inc.’s (“Saver”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motions to dismiss Robert Bosch LLC’s (“Bosch” or “Plaintiff’) patent infringement claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (D.I. 45, 46), as well a

RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Google LLC's ("Google") Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 for Improper Venue. (Dkt. No. 125) ("the Motion"). Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be D

OPINION Ashely M. Chan, United States Bankruptcy Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction... 136 II. Facts and Procedural History... 136 A. The Debtor... 137 B. The Chesapeake Bank Factoring Agreement... 137 C. So Real Brands, LLC... 138 D. The Debtor’s Assets... 138

2. The Jury Instructions Regarding Bad Faith12 The Federal Circuit's decision in Zenith governs the bad faith inquiry. Zenith holds that "[e]xactly what constitutes bad faith remains to be determined on a case by case basis. Obviously, if the patentee knows that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed , yet represents to the mark

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SDF FUNDING LLC and STUART D. ) FELDMAN, derivatively on behalf of ) FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2017-0732-KSJM ) STANLEY B. FRY, EDWARD D.

JEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On March 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in United States Patent Nos. 8,661,361 ("the '361 Patent"), 9,423,938 ("the '938 Patent"), *5939,423,923 ("the '923 Patent"), 9,841,878 ("the '878 Patent"), 9,823,838 ("the '838 Patent")

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Enfish sued Microsoft for infringement of several patents related to a “self-referential” database. On summary judgment, the district court found all claims invalid as ineligible under § 101, some claims invalid as anticipated under § 102, and one claim not infringed. Enfish appeals. We find that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, so we rever

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. BACKGROUND.. .32 A. Factual Background... 32 B. Procedural History.. .33 1. Initial Complaint and Pre-Trial Proceedings.. .33 2. Jury Verdict... 34 3. Post-Trial Motions... 34 C. Applicable Standards of Review.. .35

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION . Plaintiff SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) filed suit against defendant .Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,616 (“the’615 patent”) and 6,484,203 (“the ’203 patent”) (collectively, “the patents”) on September 4, 2013. (D.I. 1.) On December 18, 2013, Cisco answered the complaint and cou

MEMORANDUM OPINION HONORABLE SARA LIOI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. (“plaintiff’ or “01” or “Communique”) brought this action on February 1, 2006, alleging that defendants Citrix Systems, Inc. and Citrix Online, LLC (collectively “defendants” or “Citrix”), infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479 (the ’479 patent”). (Doc. No..294-l [’479 patent”]). Now pending before th

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 67) LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This litigation involves a contract dispute between Beco Dairy Inc. (“BECO”) and Global Tech Systems, Inc. (“GTS”) concerning the development and licensing of dairy technology. II. PROCEDURAL

JURY DEMANDED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ‘ On June 23, 2015, Defendants FTE Automotive USA, Inc. (“FTE”) and Stoner-*967idge, Inc. (“Stoneridge”) filed separate Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recomme

(Confidentiality Agmt. Background.) The Confidentiality Agreement defined "Proprietary Information" as: (a) all technology, know how, plans, designs, specifications, formulas, technical information, drawings, and other information related to the Company's products, production equipment, and manufacturing processes, (b) audited and internally prepared financial statements and related supplementary