Cases

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. R + L Carriers, Inc. (“R + L”) brought suit against, inter alia, Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), asserting infringement of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,078 (“the '078 patent”). While the case was pending, R + L filed for ex parte reexamination of the '078 patent. Although the patent survived, R + L added language to all of the c

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. Dissenting in part and concurring in part opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. In this patent infringement action, R + L Carriers, Inc. (“R + L”) appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of its amended complaints and counterclaims against DriverTech LLC (“DriverTech”), Affiliated Computer

ORDER SANDRA S. BECKWITH, Senior District Judge. The above listed Defendants have moved to dismiss, or for judgment on the plead*682ings on R & L’s claims for patent infringement against these Defendants. Qualcomm filed its motion on December 1, 2009 (Doc. 68), and the other nine Defendants filed a joint motion on December 30. (Doc. 87

Case: 22-1755 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1755, 2024-2221 ______________________

Case: 22-1755 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1755, 2024-2221 ______________________

ORDER ROY B. DALTON JR., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Qualcomm’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial Regarding Invalidity (Doc. 499), filed December 20, 2013; *12692. Parkervision’s Response in Oppositio

ORDER ROY B. DALTON JR., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. ParkerVision’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity (Doc. 269), filed May 22, 2013; 2. Qualcomm’s Opposition to ParkerVision’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity (Doc. 275), filed June 24, 2013;

249 P.3d 167 (2011) QUALCOMM, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. No. 83673-6. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued September 21, 2010. Decided March 10, 2011. Michele G. Radosevich, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, Peter D. Edgerton, Scott J. Heyman, Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL, Carter G. Phillips, Richard D. Kling

Chambers, J. ¶1 Qualcomm Inc. sells the “OmniTRACS” system to trucking companies. The system includes hardware, software, and a service that collects, manipulates, and transmits data from the trucks to the companies’ dispatch centers. Under our tax system, the legislature imposes different business and occupation (B&O) tax rates depending on the nature of the business. Thus the “retailing B&O” tax rate is lower than the “

FILED Septe·m b e r 19 ,.2 1016 1N C O URT OF ~r ORKI.RS' COliPoE S.ATION CLill.IS TENNESSEE BUREAU

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS

603 F.Supp.2d 1291 (2009) Christopher LORENZO, suing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Case No. 08cv2124 WQH (POR). United States District Court, S.D. California. March 3, 2009. *1294 R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP, Long Beach,

188 F.Supp.2d 1201 (2002) GTE WIRELESS, INC., Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM, INC, Defendant. Qualcomm, Inc., Counterclaimant, v. GTE Wireless, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant. No. CIV. 99CV2173-B(CGA). United States District Court, S.D. California. February 14, 2002. *1202 *1203 W. Bryan Far

73 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 184 QUALCOMM, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Defendants and Respondents. No. D050433. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division Four. March 25, 2008. *772 Heller Ehrman, David B. Goodwin, Barry S. L

543 F.3d 683 (2008) BROADCOM CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 2008-1199, 2008-1271, 2008-1272. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 24, 2008. *685 William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With

(2008) BROADCOM CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. Case No. SACV 05-467 JVS(RNBx). United States District Court, C.D. California. October 29, 2008. Order Granting Motion for Return of '686 Sunset Royalties JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge. Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") seeks the return of royalties it pa

492 F.Supp.2d 1103 (2007) Deborah SCHOONOVER, Plaintiff, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., Defendant. No. 4:06-cv-00042-JEG. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division. June 26, 2007. *1104 *1105 *1106 *1107<

Case: 20-1664 Document: 103 Page: 1 Filed: 12/28/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ INTEL CORPORATION, Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Appellee ______________________ 2020-1664 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent a

Case: 20-1589 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Appellant v. INTEL CORPORATION, Appellee ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PAT

Case: 20-1664 Document: 103 Page: 1 Filed: 12/28/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ INTEL CORPORATION, Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Appellee ______________________ 2020-1664 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent a