Cases

ACCEPTED 14-15-00024-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/6/2015 5:12:55 PM

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion To Dismiss Re: Dkt. No. 14 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Plaintiff Windy City Innovations, LLC filed this action in the Western District of North Carolina against defendant Microsoft Corp. for alleged infringement of four of plaintiffs patents. (Dkt. No. .1, “Compl.”) Based thereon, plaintiff seeks: (i)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 SPORKIN, District Judge. The issue before this Court is whether the entry of a proposed antitrust consent decree between Microsoft Corporation and the United States is in “the public interest.”2 Microsoft is the world’s largest developer of computer software. On July 15, 1994, the Government filed a complaint

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Opinion ZARELLA, J. This appeal raises two significant issues.1 First, as a matter of first impression, we must determine whether the plaintiff, Andrew Vacco,2 as an end user licensee3 of a software product manufactured by the defendant, Mircosoft Corporation, may maintain a claim against the defendant pursuant to th

102 F.Supp.2d 113 (2000) Michael I. RACKMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 97-CV-0003 (CBA). United States District Court, E.D. New York. June 13, 2000. *114 Michael I. Rackman, Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, New York City, for plaintiff. Robert T. Tobin, Philip J. McCabe, Paul H. Heller, Kenyon &am;

104 F.Supp.2d 48 (2000) Martin Gardner REIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION and Harold C. Wegner, Defendants. No. CIV.A.2000-567 RMU. United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 26, 2000. *49 Martin Gardner Reiffin, Danville, CA, Plaintiff pro se, Mr. Martin G. Reiffin. Gary M. Zinkgraf, Foley & La

114 F.Supp.2d 59 (2000) BRISTOL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV. A. 3:98-CV-1657. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 31, 2000. *60 *61 *62 *63 Patrick Lynch, O'

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, Misc. No. 18-mc-00023 (TSC) v. Donna M. Hill, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court are the United States’ Petition and Amended Petition for Summary Enforcement of Inspector Gen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) ) GOOGLE LLC,

102 F.Supp.2d 722 (2000) GOLDTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES INC., v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION. No. A 99 CA 336 SS. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division. May 31, 2000. *723 James E. Geringer, J. Christopher Carraway, John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman Campbell Leigh & Whinston, LLP, Portland, OR, David J. Beck, Eric

FILED MAR 2 9 2018 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 3Jn tbe Wntteb ~tates q[:ourt of jfeberal q[:Iatms No . 13-307C

129 F.Supp.2d 995 (2000) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SOFTWARE WHOLESALE CLUB, INC. and Glenn Young, Defendants. No. Civ.A. H-99-2310. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. December 15, 2000. *996 *997 *998 Elizann Carroll, Str

Case: 19-2326 Document: 82 Page: 1 Filed: 09/02/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2019-2326 ______________________ Appeal from the Unite

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-1880C (Filed: July 19, 2019) (Re-Filed: July 26, 2019) 1 ************************** ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, Pre-award bid protest; 10 v. U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3)-(4) (20

Post-trial decision in a patent case; 28 U.S.C. § 1498; infringement; patent-eligible subject matter; nonobviousness; enablement; reasonable and entire compensation OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge. This post-trial decision addresses plaintiffs’ claim for damages attributa

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: In the anarchy following Hurricane Katrina, a group of heavily armed New Orleans police officers were dispatched to the Danziger Bridge in response to an emergency call reporting shots being fired at police. There, amid chaos, they shot and killed two unarmed men, one of them developmentally disabled, and wounded four other unarmed civilians. The police then allegedly orchestrated a cover-up to

13‐3741‐cv (L) United States v. Apple, Inc. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term 2014 5 6 (Argued: December 15, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2015) 7 8 Nos. 13‐3741‐cv, 13‐3748‐cv, 13‐3783‐cv, 13‐3857‐cv, 13‐3864‐cv, 13‐3867‐cv

OPINION 1 HEWITT, Chief Judge. This is an action for just compensation filed by owners of property along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. Plaintiffs’ properties are located along an area of the shoreline that erodes naturally, but allege that the government’s construction and maintenance of a pair of jetties effected a taking by speeding the erosion of