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.
8 opinions for “Vederi, LLC v. Google LLC”
Google, Inc. v. Vederi, LLC.public domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Google, Inc. v. Vederi, LLC.public domain
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.public domain
RADER, Chief Judge. The United States District Court for the Central District of California entered summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Google, Inc. (Google) and against Vederi, LLC (Vederi) on October 5, 2012. Because the district court erred in its claim construction, this court vacates the judgment of non-infringement and remands for further proceedings.
Opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board” or “PTAB”), on Inter Partes Review, that claims 1-8 of MPHJ’s U.S. Patent No. 8,488,173 (“the T73 Patent”) are invalid on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness.1 On appell
Lecat's Ventriloscope v. MT Tool & Mfg.public domain
Chief Judge Rubén Castillo Lecat's Ventriloscope ("Plaintiff") filed this suit against MT Tool and Manufacturing ("Defendant") for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,645,141 ("the '141 Patent"). (R. 1, Compl.) Generally speaking, the invention disclosed and claimed in the '141 Patent is a device to h
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.public domain
MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. “[I]n some instances, a factual finding may be close to dispositive of the ultimate legal question of the proper meaning of [a claim] term in the context of [a] patent.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,. — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 831, 841-42, — L.Ed.2d-(2015). This is such a case. After carefully evaluating the testimony of the parties’ experts, the district court mad
Lam Research Corp. v. Schunk Semiconductorpublic domain
ORDER DENYING XYCARB’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND LAM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court are Defendant Xycarb Ceramic’s (“Xycarb”) motion to bifurcate this action into two trials — one for liability and one for damages — and Plaintiff Lam Research Corporation’s (“Lam”) motion for partial summary judgment.
Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisoft, Inc.public domain
ORDER FOLLOWING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING JON P. McCALLA, District Judge. Before the Court is the parties’ request for claim construction pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc). I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Plaintiff Guitar Apprentice, Inc. (“Guitar Apprentice”) is a Delaware