Cases

(2008) MEIJER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. Walgreen Co., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 05-2195 (CKK), 06-494(CKK), 06-795(CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. Augu

691 F.Supp.2d 577 (2010) ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES GMBH and Accenture LLP, Plaintiffs, v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE INC., Defendant. Civ. No. 07-826-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. March 5, 2010. *578 Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire, and David E. Moore, Esquire, of Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE, of coun

50 F.Supp.2d 318 (1999) SYNCSORT INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. SEQUENTIAL SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant. No. CIV. A. 98-882(AJL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. January 28, 1999. *319 *320 *321 Ronald Abramson, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Saddle

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ' TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. After some fits and starts, this patent infringement case is before the Court to determine whether the-two patents at issue — both 'involving “an apparatus and method for providing financial transaction authorization, notification,' and/or security” — are invalid because they are drawn to

MAYER, Chief Judge. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas that United States Patent No. 6,017,855 (“'855 patent”) is not invalid and infringed. BJ Serv. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., 00-CV-948 (S.D.Tex. Apr. 23, 2002). Because the district court did not er

201 F.Supp.2d 236 (2002) GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS TECHNOLOGY CORP., (as successor in interest to Invamed, Inc.), Plaintiff, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Brantford Chemicals Inc., Bernard C. Sherman, Apotex Holdings Inc., Apotex Inc. and Sherman Delaware, Inc., Defendants Apothecon, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., Brantford Chemicals Inc., Bernard C. Sherman, Apotex Holdings Inc., Apotex Inc. and Sherman Delaware, Inc., Defen

880 F.Supp. 1005 (1994) MOBIUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff. v. FOURTH DIMENSION SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant. No. 94 Civ. 0749 (LAP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. November 30, 1994. *1006 *1007 *1008 Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Jonathan Wagne

292 B.R. 207 (2003) In re SIMON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Dick Simon Trucking, Inc., and Simon Terminal, LLC, Debtors. No. 02-22906. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah. April 25, 2003. *208 *209 L. Mark Ferre, Weston L. Harris, Parsons Davies Kinghorn & Peters, Salt Lake City, UT, Mark A

331 F.Supp.2d 673 (2004) ENGATE, INC., Plaintiff, v. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES, L.L.C. and Atkinson-Baker, Inc. Defendants. No. 01 C 6204. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 20, 2004. *674 *675 *676 Joseph A. Grear, Law

OPINION AND ORDER Mark S. Davis, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CertusView Technologies, LLC (“Cer-tusView” or “Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant”) filed this patent infringement action alleging that S&N Locating Services, LLC and S&N Communications, Inc.’s (“S&N” or “Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs”) infringed the five Patents-in-Suit. S&N responded by filing an amended answer asserting an inequita

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION ) VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and ) DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS ) CORPORATION, ) C.A. No.: N21C-08-063 EMD ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00685-CV ___________________________ GREG SMITH, BRENDA BARR MECKLEY, AND LISA LOSHELDER, Appellants V. LINA RAMEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 442nd District Court Denton Coun

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW AFTER A BENCH TRIAL ON INVENTORSHIP STEARNS, D.J. *112The court held a three-day bench trial confined to a single issue: Is Peter Schulter an inventor of United States Patent No. 7,231,430 (the '430 patent) ? Based on the credible testimony and exhibits offered at trial, and the stipulations of the part

Chen, Circuit Judge. CenTrak, Inc. sued Sonitor Technologies, Inc. for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,604,909 ('909 patent), which claims systems for locating and identifying portable devices using ultrasonic base stations. The district co

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 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

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 461–521 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

Memorandum and order DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Tele-Publishing, Inc. (“TPI”) and defendants .Facebook, Inc. and TheFa-cebook, LLC (collectively “Facebook”) have presented various dispositive motions to resolve this computer program patent dispute. The focus’ of the instant memorandum will be the respective requests for summary disposition regarding the validity of the assert

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION ) VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and ) DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS ) CORPORATION, ) C.A. No.: N21C-08-063 EMD ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SMARTMATIC USA CORP., ) SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL ) HOLDING B.V., and SGO ) CORPORATION LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. No.: N21C-11-028 EMD v. )

OPINION OF THE COURT JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction ... 365 II. Background .. .366 A. Factual Background ... 366 1. PBX Systems and Maintenance ...366 2. PDS Systems and Maintenance ...369 3. The Dispute