Cases

462 F.3d 1344 THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.ABACUS SOFTWARE, Defendant, andCorel Corp. and Corel Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants, andMicrosoft Corporation, Defendant-Cross Appellant, andRoxio, Inc. and MGI Software, Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants. No. 05-1142. No. 05-1161. No.

OPINION & ORDER KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge. On December 4, 2014, plaintiff Disk Authoring Technologies LLC (“plaintiff’ or “DAT”) filed this action against defendant Corel' Corporation (“defendant” or “Corel Corp.”) alleging that defendant’s products infringe two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,215,743 (the “'743 Patent?»)'and 6,339,568 (the “'568 Patent”), relating to optical disk re

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge MICHEL. DYK, Circuit Judge. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (“EFI”) appeal from the stipulated final judgment of noninfringement of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. MIT and EFI urge that the district court’s cla

EXPLANATION AND ORDER ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge. A putative class of investors brings this action against Corel Corporation (“Corel”) and its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael C.J. Cowpland (“Cowpland”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, by issuing false and misleading statements regarding Cor

66 F.Supp.2d 1129 (1999) Dennis BERKLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COREL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. Civ. S-98-1159 GGH. United States District Court, E.D. California. September 9, 1999. *1130 *1131 Judith Bond Jennison, Kathryn Jean Fritz, Fenwick and West LLP, Palo Alto, CA. Dani

165 F.Supp.2d 12 (2001) COREL CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America Defendant. No. CIV. A. 99-3348 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 17, 2001. *13 *14 *15 David M. Nadler, Gilbert, Heintz & Randolph, Washi

505 F.3d 302 (2007) NOVELL, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Novell, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 06-1134, 06-1238. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: December 1, 2006. Decided: October 15, 2007.

699 F.Supp.2d 730 (2010) In re MICROSOFT CORP. ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. No. MDL 1332, JFM-05-1087. United States District Court, D. Maryland. March 30, 2010. *734 Jeffrey M. Johnson, David Leo Engelhardt, Milton A. Marquis, R. Bruce Holcomb, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, Max D. Wheeler, S

This Disposition Is Citable as Precedent Mailed: Paper No. 14 September 11, 2003 of the TTAB GFR UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ________ In re Microsoft Corporation ________ Serial No. 7

MEMORANDUM * ORDER Appeals no. 06-16199, 07-15447, 07-15587, and 07-15588 are hereby consolidated for disposition. Wayne Berry (Berry) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees1 on his claims for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and violations of both the Racketeer Influenced and Corr

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-175C (Filed: January 22, 2020) (Re-Filed: February 10, 2020) 1 ************************** IRIS CORPORATION BERHAD, Patents; claim construction; Plaintiff, Markman hearing; plain and ordinary meaning; extrinsic v.

OPINION AND ORDER JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge. Now before the Court is Defendant Reed Elsevier Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I, III and IV of the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 21). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant Reed Elsevier Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND This

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PER CURIAM. Our opinion in this case directed appellants’ counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for filing a brief that exceeded the type-volume limit. Counsel’s attempt to incorporate some other document by reference led us to check whether this had been done in order to *816dodge the limit. Here’s what we

185 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 1999) Anthony DeSilva, Albert DeSilva, Anthony J. LoBue, and Thomas Kulekowskis, Petitioners-Appellants,v.Joseph G. DiLeonardi, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee. Nos. 99-1754, 99-1769 United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Decided July 21, 1999

ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant/Counter-Claimant GI Dynamics, Inc.’s (“GID”) Counterclaims filed by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”). (Doc. 119). For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND Gore’s Med

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Now before the Court is Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.’s (“Adobe”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Free FreeHand’s and Plaintiff Jabez Palmer’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) first amended complaint. ECF No. 20. The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 8, 2011. Having considered the parties’ briefing and arguments,

346 F.Supp.2d 145 (2004) LABAT-ANDERSON, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 04-1826(JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 22, 2004. Thomas Leo McGovern, III, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Washington, Counsel for plaintiff. Stratton Christopher Strand, United States Attorney's Office for the District o

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiffs Louis Psihoyos and James P. Reed bring this action for copyright infringement against Defendants Pearson Education, Inc. (“Pearson”) and R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Courier Corporation, and Failsafe Media Company (collectively, the “Printer Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Pearson published, and the Printer Defe

369 F.Supp.2d 1138 (2005) Susan CHAMBERLAN; Brian Champine; and Henry Fok, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. No. C 03-02628 CW. United States District Court, N.D. California. May 4, 2005. *1139<

503 F.Supp.2d 577 (2007) SADHU SINGH HAMDAD TRUST, Plaintiff, v. AJIT NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 04 CV 3503(CLP). United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 14, 2007. *578 *579 *580 James K. H