Cases

PROST, Chief Judge. Apple Inc. appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in which a jury found that Apple infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (“'135 patent”), 7,418,504 (“'504 patent”), 7,490,151 (“'151 patent”), and 7,921,211 (“'211 patent”). The jury further found that none of the infringed claims were invalid and awarded da

Case: 19-1671 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Case: 19-1671 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Prost, Chief Judge. *1367 Appellant VirnetX Inc. ("VirnetX") appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") related to three inter partes reexaminations maintained by Apple Inc. ("Apple") and Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco"). The United States Patent and Trademark Of

MEMORANDUM OPINION Sue L. Robinson, Senior District Judge 1. INTRODUCTION On September 4, 2013, plaintiff SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) filed suit against defendant Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,615 (“the ’615 patent”) and 6,484,203 (“the ’203 patent”) (collectively, “the patents”). (D.I. 1) On December 18, 2013, Cisco answered the complaint

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are the following motions: *843• Defendant Apple Inc.'s ("Apple") Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages (Docket No. 1018);1 • Apple's Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgme

PROST, Chief Judge. Following a bench trial on damages, the district court awarded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organi-sation (“CSIRO”) $16,243,067 for Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) infringement of CSIRO’s U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (“'069 patent”). On appeal, Cisco challenges the district court’s damages award. We conclude that the district court’s methodo

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. The following motions are before the Court: • Apple’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b). or, in the alternative, for a New Trial or a Remittitur (Docket No. 623); • VirnetX’s Motion for Post-Verdict Damages to the Time of Judgment, Pre-Judgment Interest, and Post-

Dyk, Circuit Judge. A jury found Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) liable for infringement of four patents owned by Finjan, Inc. (“Fin-jan”) and' awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. After trial, the district court concluded that the ’844 patent was patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and denied Blue Coat’s post-trial mo

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Ericsson, Inc. & Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”) brought suit against D-Link Systems, Inc.; Netgear, Inc.; Acer, Inc.; Acer America Corp.; Gateway, Inc.; Dell, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; and Toshiba Corp., with Intel Corp. intervening (collectively, “D-Link”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, allegin

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. This patent case involves multi-tier virtual private networks. SSL Services, LLC (“SSL”) asserted that Citrix Systems, Inc. and Citrix Online, LLC (collectively, “Ci-trix”) infringed claims contained in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,061,796 (“the '796 Patent”) and 6,158,011 (“the 'Oil Patent”). The district court held a Markman hearing and construed several terms

Case: 20-2011 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. WI-LAN INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2020-2011, 2020-2094 ______________________ Appeals from the

Case: 20-2011 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. WI-LAN INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2020-2011, 2020-2094 ______________________ Appeals from the

Chen, Circuit Judge. *1275 This appeal concerns UCB, Inc., UCB Manufacturing Ireland Limited, UCB Pharma GmbH, and LTS Lohman Therapie-Systeme AG (UCB)'s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,884,434 1 and 8,232,414.

Case: 23-1101 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ECOFACTOR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2023-1101 ______________________ Appeal from the United S

Case: 23-1101 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ECOFACTOR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2023-1101 ______________________ Appeal from the United S

Taranto, Circuit Judge. Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. and Elbit Systems of America, LLC (collectively, Elbit) brought this action against Hughes Network Systems, LLC (and other defendants no longer in the case). Elbit alleged that Hughes infringed Elbit's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,240,073 and 7,245,874. The jury found system claims 2-4 of the '073 patent infringed and not invalid, and it awa

Case: 22-1048 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ FINJAN LLC, FKA FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SONICWALL, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2022-1048 ______________________ Appeal from the United St

Case: 19-2255 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. 10X GENOMICS INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2019-2255, 2019-2285 _____

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Before the Court are the parties' post-trial motions (Dkt. Nos. 648, 649, 650, 661, 662, 666), plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. Nos. 660, 666), and two administrative motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 684, 697). After hearing argument and considering the parties' materials, the Court rules as follows.