⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

5 opinions for “PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. EMC Corporation”

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021-08-12 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 20-1543 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2020-1543 ______________________ Appeal
District Court, N.D. California · 2014-09-24 · Published · cited 50× · 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136813; 2014 WL 4757816
OrdeR Granting Motion of Defendant to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE I. Introduction As set forth herein, the Court Grants the motion of defendant Apple Inc. to stay this case in favor of inter partes review proceedings currently underway before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). (Dkt. No. 125.)
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015-09-28 · Published · cited 2× · 137 F. Supp. 3d 3; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133051; 2015 WL 5737145
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WOLF, District Judge. On June 27, 2014, Aplix IP Holdings Corporation (“Aplix”) filed a complaint against Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (“SCE”) and Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC (“SCEA”) (collectively, “Sony”), alleging infringement of three patents. On October 16, 2014, SCE and SCEA answered in separate filings. Each asserted, among other affirmative defenses, non-infring
District Court, E.D. Texas · 2013-03-28 · Published · cited 9× · 937 F. Supp. 2d 867; 2013 WL 1314413; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44265
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to transfer venue1 (Doc. No. 35). Having fully considered the parties’ arguments, the undisputed facts, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Cal
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016-03-23 · Published · cited 11× · 817 F.3d 1293; 118 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1316; 2016 WL 1128083; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5352
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC., Appellant v. AUTOMATED CREEL SYSTEMS, INC., Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2015-1116, 2015-1119 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-0013