Cases

Case: 23-2346 Document: 123 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LYNK LABS, INC., Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellee DERRICK BRENT, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFI

Case: 20-1160 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ M & K HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appellee ______________________ 2020-1160 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and

O'Malley, Circuit Judge. In two inter partes review proceedings requested by Samsung, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") upheld all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,917,772 ("the '772 patent"), which is owned by Infobridge. The Board upheld the claims because it found that Samsung failed to show that a certain prior art reference was publicly accessible before the '772 pa

*1287 REYNA, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in a patent case. The jury found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 (“the '482 patent”) not invalid and infringed. The jury awarded Appellee-Cross Appellant Summit 6, LLC (“Summit”) $15 million in d

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) brings this motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) from “making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court following a Markman hearing, conducted for the purpose of construing nine disputed claim terms in the patents-in-suit. After careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing, the Court issues the following Opinion and Order detailing th

FILED UNDER SEAL MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID L. HORAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On March 7, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant All Pro Distributing, Inc.’s (“All Pro") Second Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Withdraw Improper Objections and Respond Fully to Written Discovery [Dkt. No. 85] and Plaintiff Samsung E

MEMORANDUM ORDER Christopher J. Burke, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is a renewed motion (“renewed motion” or “Motion”) to' stay the proceedings in the instant patent infringement case, filed by Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG International (America), Inc. (“Defendants” or “LG”). (D.I. 62) Defendants now seek to stay the only remaining portion of this

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. Before the Court are the parties’ post-trial motions. Having considered the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, the Court: DENIES Samsung’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law that: (1) Samsung Does Not Infringe Any Claim of the Patents-in-Suit; (2) the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are Invalid; (3) Samsung is No

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. Northern Telecom Limited (“Northern Telecom”) appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,-which granted summary judgment invalidating Northern Telecom’s United States Patent No. 4,030,967 (“the ’967 patent”) for failure to disclose the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention.

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (collectively, "Huawei") and defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") are major players in the world of wireless telecommunications-a world gov

JEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On March 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in United States Patent Nos. 8,661,361 ("the '361 Patent"), 9,423,938 ("the '938 Patent"), *5939,423,923 ("the '923 Patent"), 9,841,878 ("the '878 Patent"), 9,823,838 ("the '838 Patent")

¶1 — In resolving this appeal, which requires us to consider the due process limitations on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over certain foreign corporations, we hold that because a product manufactured by these foreign corporations was sold — as an integrated component part of retail consumer goods — into Washington in high volume over a period of years, the corporations “purposefully” established “minimum contacts” in Washington. Owing to our conc

"r-> p.v T t.,:^ j , \ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION ONE Respondent, No. 70298-0-1 v. (linked with No. 70299-8-1) LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; KONINKL

361 F.Supp.2d 370 (2005) ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALCON INC., a Swiss corporation, and Alcon Laboratories, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation. Defendants. No. CIV.A.03-1095-KAJ. United States District Court, D. Delaware. March 28, 2005. *371 *372 <

524 F.Supp.2d 628 (2006) SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., Ltd., a corporation, and Panasonic Corporation of North America, a corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-1680. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. February 28, 2006. *629

THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. These patent infringement actions are before the court on several pretrial motions filed by the parties. Precision Fabrics *552Group, Inc. ("PFG") alleges that Tietex International, Ltd. ("Tietex") infringed its U.S. Patents Nos. 8,796,162 ('162 Patent) and 8,501,639 ('639 Patent) for flame-retardant techno

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

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Asia Vital Components Co. ("AVC") and Defendant/Counter-Claimant Asetek Danmark A/S. ECF Nos. 180, 186. Asetek has also filed several requests to strike. ECF No. 185. The Court will grant the motions to strike in part, grant Asetek's motion for partial summary judgment, and deny AVC's motio

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD