Cases

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONNECTIONS DIGITAL, LLC, TEON MILLER IN- , DIVIDUALLY AND D/BIA PHONE-MAX, NORMAN LOPEZ AND TROY SCOTT RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Sprint Solutions, Inc. and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (collectively “Sprint” or “Plaintiffs”) brought the ' above-captioned lawsuit against Defendants Connections Digital, LLC, Te

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On April 11, 2011, Walker Digital LLC (“plaintiff’) filed the present patent infringement litigation against Fandango, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Amazon, Inc. (“Amazon”), eBay, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., and Zappos.com, Inc. (“Zappos”) (collectively, the “defendants”). (D.I. 1) Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint

*1160ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS RONALD M. WHYTE, United States District Judge Defendants Sprint Nextel Corporation, Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Sprint Solutions Inc., Apple, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Foursquare Labs, Inc., Groupon, Inc., LivingSo-cial, Inc., Twitter, Inc:, Ye

In the United States Court of Federal Claims ) POWER DENSITY SOLUTIONS LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 21-911C v. ) (Filed: April 8, 2022) ) THE UNITED STAT

ORDER JAMES E. GRITZNER, Senior Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... .712 II. JURISDICTION... .712 III. BACKGROUND... .712 A Telecommunication Regulatory Backdrop .... 712 1. Communications Act of 1934.... 712 2. Anti-trust Litigation.... 713

BATAILLON, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In this patent case involving Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company, L.P. ("Plaintiff" or "Sprint") against Defendant *602Cox Communications, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Cox"), Sprint alleges that Cox infringes certain of Sprint's telecommunications and data networki

MEMORANDUM DuBOIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs and counterclaim-defendants, Comcast Communications, LLC and related corporate entities (collectively “Com-cast”), brought this action against defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs, Sprint *594Communications Co., LP and related corporate entities (collecti

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Cox Communications Inc.’s (“CCI”) Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Doc. 31) and Defendants CCI, Cox Communications Kansas, LLC, Cox Kansas Telcom, LLC, and CoxCom, LLC’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 33). The Court granted Sprint’s request t

*1298 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge. Plaintiff High Point Sari (“High Point”) alleges that defendants Sprint Nextel Corporation; Sprint Spectrum L.P.; Sprint-com, Inc.; Sprint Communications Company L.P.; Sprint Solutions, Inc.; APA.C PCS, LLC; APC Realty and Equipment Company, LLC; and STC Two LLC (collectively “Sprin

*581OPINION WENDY BEETLESTONE, DISTRICT JUDGE. This action arises out of incidents in May 2014, when Defendant Resultly, LLC (“Resultly”), in its efforts to earn commissions through Defendant VigLink, Inc.’s (“VigLink”) participation in QVC’s marketing affiliate program, crawled QVC’s website in a manner that QVC alleges overloaded its servers and ren

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 117. in C 12-cv-6293 SI and Dkt. No. 141 in C 12-cv-6294 SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge On December 2, 2014, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity of plaintiffs patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants’

MEMORANDUM OPINION . HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“MTel”) alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,403 (“the ’403. patent”);. 5,915,210 (“the ’210 patent”); and 5,659,891 (“the ’891 patent,” and collectively with the ’403 and ’210 patents, the “asr serted patents”). The .asserted patents relate to a wireless messaging network.

(2008) SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SWANSEA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-12110-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 23, 2008. ORDER PATTI B. SARIS, District Judge. "I adopt the report and recommendation without objection and allow plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment." REPOR

614 F.3d 1333 (2010) ENOVSYS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Nextel of California, Inc., Nextel Communications of the Midatlantic, Inc., Nextel of New York, Inc., Nextel South Corporation, Nextel of Texas, Inc., Nextel West Corp., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P., and Sprint Solutions, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2009-1167. <

OPINION IRENAS, Senior District Judge: This is a copyright infringement suit.1 Before the Court is Defendant Emerson Cleaners, Inc.’s (“Emerson”) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for either direct or indirect copyright infringement. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted as to LFOW’s contributory infringement claim and denied in all other res

Re: ECF No. 924. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action involving ‘Wireless Modem” Patent No. 5,592,491 (“the '491 Patent”), Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint”), HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”), United States Ce

500 F.Supp.2d 1290 (2007) SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., Plaintiff, v. VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. and Vonage America, Inc., Defendants. No. 05-2433-JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. August 7, 2007. *1291 *1292 *1293

*947REVISED ORDER CONSTRUING AND DETERMINING VALIDITY OF CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,592,491 JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge v On May 10, 2013, the Court held a hearing for the purpose of construing disputed terms in the claims of United States Patent No. 5,592,491. ECF No. 711. At that hearing, the Court requested further briefing

738 F.Supp.2d 782 (2010) NEUTRAL TANDEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. PEERLESS NETWORK, LLC; Peerless Network of Illinois, LLC; and John Barnicle, Defendants. Peerless Network, LLC; Peerless Network of Illinois, LLC; and John Barnicle, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. Neutral Tandem, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant. No. 08 C 3402. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRIAN JACOBS, ALAN JACOBS, THE ) BERNARD B. JACOBS AND SARA JACOBS ) FAMILY TRUST, JEAN-LOUIS VELAISE, ) DALE KUTNICK, TOREN KUTNICK, ) EDWARD B. ROBERTS, JOHN DENNIS, ) SHLOMO BAKHASH, and JOAN RUBIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, )