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.
20 opinions for “United States v. HTC Mobile Phone”
HTC v. Telefonaktiebolagetpublic domain
Case: 19-40566 Document: 00515999668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 31, 2021
Ipcom Gmbh & Co. v. Htc Corporationpublic domain
CHEN, Circuit Judge. IPCom GmbH & Co. (IPCom) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,830 (’830 patent), which describes and claims a method and system for handing over a mobile phone call from one base station to another base station. After IPCom sued HTC Corporation (HTC) for infringing the ’830 patent, HTC requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) conduct
Htc Corporation v. Ipcom Gmbh & Co., Kgpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HTC CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1897 (RMC)
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp.public domain
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER WILLIAM T. HART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Intellect Wireless, Inc. (“IW”) has accused defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively “HTC”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,266,186 (“the '186 patent”) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Improved Paging Receiver and System” and U.S. P
Htc Corporation v. Ipcom Gmbh & Co., Kgpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HTC CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and ) Counterclaim-Defendants, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1897 (RMC) ) IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, ) )
HTC CORP. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KGpublic domain
667 F.3d 1270 (2012) HTC CORPORATION and HTC America, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2011-1004. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. January 30, 2012. *1272 Michael A. Oblon, Perkins Coie, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief w
HTC CORP. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KGpublic domain
671 F.Supp.2d 146 (2009) HTC CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs and, Counterclaim-Defendants, v. IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Civil Action No. 08-1897 (RMC). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 3, 2009. *147 John S. Skilton, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI, Scott A. Sher, Wil
Htc Corporation v. Ipcom Gmbh & Co., Kgpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HTC CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and, ) Counterclaim-Defendants, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1897 (RMC) ) IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, ) ) Def
Htc Corp. v. Ipcom Gmbh & Co., Kgpublic domain
751 F.Supp.2d 1 (2010) HTC CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants, v. IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Civil Action No. 08-1897 (RMC). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 25, 2010. *6 John S. Skilton, Jeff J. Bowen, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI, Scott A.
HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KGpublic domain
PUBLIC VERSION MEMORANDUM OPINION ON IP-COM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge HTC Corporation of Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. (collectively “HTC”) initiated this patent litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that HTC mobile phone products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,390,216 (“216 Patent”) owned by IPCom GmbH
On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge This action arises from a patent infringement dispute between On Track Innovations Ltd. (“OTI”), a developer of virtual payment systems and the current owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,045,043 (“the ’043 patent”), and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), a mobile network operator (“MNO”). OTI alleges that T-Mobile infringed the ’043 patent through its sale of ne
ORDER CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.’s (“T-Mobile” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Claims of Induced, Contributory, Willful, and Joint Infringement (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 17). Plaintiff Brandy-wine Communications Technologies, LLC (“Brandywine” or “Plaintiff’) filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motio
Cellcast Technologies, LLC v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-1307 (Filed: 29 October 2020 *) *************************************** CELLCAST TECHNOLOGIES, * LLC AND ENVISIONIT, LLC, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. *
American Auto Logistics, Lp v. United Statespublic domain
United States Transportation Command; Past Performance Evaluation; Performance Price Tradeoff; Commercial Marketplace; Global Privately-Owned Vehicle Contract. OPINION HORN, J. Protestor, American Auto Logistics, LP, filed a post-award bid protest on February 5, 2014, challenging the award by the United States Transportation Command
ACCEPTED 05-15-00161-CV 05-15-00161-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 2/9/2015 3:21:23 PM NO.
Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In June 2015, plaintiff Evolved Wireless, LLC (“plaintiff’) brought separate patent infringement actions against the following defendants: Apple, Inc.; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; Lenovo Group Ltd.; Lenovo (United States) Inc.; Motorola Mobility; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; ZTE (USA) I
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the initial authorized sale of a *865patented item terminates the patent holder’s rights to that item, and the patent holder may not sue a downstream user of the item for infringement. Patent exhaustion also applies to method patent
Microsoft Corp. v. International Trade Commissionpublic domain
TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Microsoft Corporation appeals from an order of the United States International Trade Commission that found no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 insofar as Microsoft alleged that Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Motorola), infringed four of Microsoft’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,578,054; 6,826,762; 7,644,376; and 5,664,133. The Commission found no infringement of tho
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC, has sued Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Samsung) and HTC Corporation (HTC) for patent infringement, contending that the defendants manufacture and sell products that infringe U.S. patent number 7,065,750 (the ’750 patent). On September 14, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment in part, conclud
Salazar v. At&t Mobility LLCpublic domain
Case: 21-2320 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JOE A. SALAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, SPRINT UNITED MANAGE- MENT COMPANY, T-MOBILE USA, INC., CELLCO PARTNERSHIP INC., DBA VERIZON WIRELESS, INC., Defendants-Cross-Appellants HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMER