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.
10 opinions for “Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation”
Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp.public domain
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 31 LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiff Twiilio, Inc. (“Twilio” or “Plaintiff’) filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant Telesign Corporation (“Telesign” or “Defendant”) and alleged that Defendant infringed the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,306,021 (“the ’021 Patent”), 8,837,465 (“the ’465 Patent”
Vlsi Technology LLC v. Intel Corporationpublic domain
Case: 24-1772 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1772 ______________________ Appeal from the United
RingCentral, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc.public domain
JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Dialpad, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. The Court will grant the motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff RingCentral, Inc. and Defendant Dialpad, Inc. are competitors in the "cloud-based unified communications" market. ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 1-2. Both offer voice, video, and messaging services. Id. RingCentral
Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc United States, Inc.public domain
SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Now before the Court is plaintiff/counter-defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which seeks a finding that U.S. Patent No. 6,980,522 is patent-ineligible under
Sunrise Technologies, Inc. v. Cimcon Lighting, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge Plaintiff Sunrise Technologies, Inc. (“plaintiff’) alleges defendant Cimcom Lighting, Inc. (“defendant”) is liable for direct, contributory, induced and willful infringement of one of its patents for a mesh network of wirelessly linked communication nodes mounted on utility poles. Defendant has filed this motion t
Looksmart Grp., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.public domain
JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Microsoft Corp.'s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Looksmart Group, Inc.'s expert report *1225on damages. ECF No. 108. The Court will deny the motion.1 I. BACKGROUND In this patent di
Location Based Servs., LLC v. Niantic, Inc.public domain
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, United States Magistrate Judge In the summer of 2016 it was common to see children and adults walking while craning their necks down to their phones in an effort to catch Pokémon or reach Pokéstops. This patent infringement suit goes to the core of the mapping technology used in Pokémon GO. Plaintiff Location Based Services, LLC (LBS) asserts 44 separate claims spread out over four map-related patents that are
Deetz Family, LLC v. Rust-Oleum Corp.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No, 19) Hillman, District Judge. Plaintiff Deetz Family, LLC filed this lawsuit after defendant Rust-Oleum Corporation ceased making payments under the parties’ License Agreement for use of Deetz’s patented inventions and know-how related to magnetic paint products. Deetz asserts claims for breach of contract (Count I), breac
JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Two motions are now before the Court: (1) Plaintiff Thunder Power New Energy Vehicle Development Company Limited ("Thunder Power")'s motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants Byton North America Corporation ("Byton N.A." or "Byton") and Nanjing Byton New Energy Vehicle Technology Development Co., Ltd. ("Nanjing Byton") from making, using, offering to sell, or selling withi
Secure Axcess, LLC v. Pnc Bank National Associationpublic domain
*1004LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges, join dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. For reasons stated in my dissent from the panel’s decision and those that follow, I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision not to rehear this case en banc. The panel held that “the statutory