Cases

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Presently before the Court are Defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement (D.I. 257) and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (D.I. 266). I have reviewed the parties' briefing. (D.I. 258, 267, 288, 293, 304, 306). I heard oral argument on March 7, 2019.1 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff TC Technology LLC ("T

Case: 23-1194 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MAXELL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2023-1194 ______________________ Appeal from the United State

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SPRINT TELEPHONY PCS, L.P., a  Delaware limited partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, and PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, dba Cingular Wireless, Plaintiff, v. Nos. 05-56076 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a divisio

Opinion by Judge GRABER; Concurrence by Judge GOULD. GRABER, Circuit Judge: The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amended in U.S.C. Titles 15, 18 & 47) (“the Act”), precludes state and local governments from enacting ordinances that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services, including wireless services.

377 F.Supp.2d 886 (2005) SPRINT TELEPHONY PCS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, and Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, dba Cingular Wireless, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a division of the state of California; Greg Cox, in his capacity as a supervisor of the County of San Diego; Dianne Jacob, in her capacity as supervisor of the County of San Diego; Pam Slater, in her capacity as a supervisor of the County

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-501C (Filed: July 27, 2022) ) 3RD EYE SURVEILLANCE, LLC and ) Patent case; motion to stay proceedings in DISCOVERY PATENTS, LLC, ) light of pending petitions for ex parte ) review; timeliness; prejudice

ACCEPTED 15-25-00207-CV Cause No. _________ FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/14/2025 4:30 PM I

ACCEPTED 01-15-00390-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 9:25:40 PM

HOLLAND, Justice: Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C. (“CIM”) and TC Group, L.L.C. (“TC Group” and, together with CIM, “Plaintiffs” or “Carlyle”) initiated this action by filing a Verified Complaint on May 28, 2010 (the “Carlyle Complaint”), against the defendant-appellant, National Industries Group (Holding) (“NIG” or “Defendant”). The Carlyle Complaint is an anti-suit injunction action. It seeks a declaratory judgment to

658 F.Supp.2d 425 (2009) COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, INC. and Telebeam Telecommunications Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, and New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, Defendants. No. 02-CV-2300 (ENV)(SMG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. September 30, 2009. *431

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: Table of Contents I. Introduction.............................................................529 II. Admissibility Standards...................................................529 III. Proffered Witnesses......................................................531

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. § § No. 340, 2021 Plaintiff and Counterclaim § Defendant Below/Appellant, § Court Below: Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 2021-0010 T-MOBILE US, INC., §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERESA J. JAMES, United States Magistrate Judge. This product liability case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 65). Plaintiffs request an order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1), overruling Defendant Kumho’s objections and compelling Kumho to answer Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories and produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Re

OPINION HANSON, Justice. This property tax appeal raises two issues. The first is whether Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (2002),1 known as the “60-day rule,” requires a taxpayer to provide the county with information on tenant-paid real estate expenses (specifically property taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance and repair expenses) within 60 days of filing a chapter 278 p

941 A.2d 751 (2008) RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY COALITION, Petitioner v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent. The Pennsylvania Telephone Association, Petitioner v. Public Utility Commission, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued December 11, 2007. Decided January 24, 2008. *752 Regina L. Matz, Harrisbur

269 F.Supp.2d 1310 (2003) E. SPIRE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and Acsi Local Switched Services, Inc. D/B/A E. Spire Communications, Plaintiffs, v. E. Shirley BACA, Jerome Block, Herb Hughes, Lynda Lovejoy, David W. King, Commissioners of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission; the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission; and Qwest Corporation, Defendants. No. CIV. 02-0495 LCS/RHS. United States District

476 F.Supp.2d 1325 (2007) VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile Texas, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF RIO RANCHO, NEW MEXICO, Defendant. No. CV 06-0823 WPL/DJS. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. March 8, 2007. *1326 Marc A. Becker, Bradley R. Schneider, Henry Weissmann, Munger Tolles & Ol

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE APPRAISAL OF COLUMBIA ) Cons. C.A. No. 12736-VCL PIPELINE GROUP, INC. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: May 16, 2019 Date Decided: August 12, 2019 Stephen E. Jenkins, Andrew D. Cordo, Marie M. Degnan, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Marcus E. Montejo, Kevin H. Davenport, John G. Day, PRICKETT, JONES & E

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. At issue post-judgment and- post-appeal in this copyright infringement case is defendants’ claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which provides that “the Court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs” and “reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. This

603 F.Supp.2d 715 (2009) NEW YORK SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Verizon Wireless, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Spring Spectrum, L.P., and Omnipoint Communications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, and The Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown, Defendants. No. 07 Civ 7637(WGY). United States District Court, S.D. New York.