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.
20 opinions for “Electrical Solutions Network, Inc.”
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2023-2377 Lower Tribunal No. 16-CA-001000 _____________________________ LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ROBERT A. LEE, ASCO SERVICES, INC., EMERS
Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Google, Inc.public domain
JUDGMENT Per Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT & T Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge At Wilmington this 4th day of June, 2015, having reviewed defendants’ motions 1 to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (D.1.11),2 and the papers filed in connection therewith; defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs claims of patent infringement shall be denied, consistent with the reasons th
692 F.Supp.2d 632 (2010) NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al, Defendants. Case No. 6:08CV30. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. February 16, 2010. *635 Gregory Scott Dovel, John Jeffrey Eichmann, Sean Aaron Luner, Dovel & Luner, Santa Monica, CA, Bruce A. Smith,
Case: 23-1397 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC, Appellant v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC., Appellee ______________________ 2023-1397 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent a
Island Online, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc.public domain
119 F.Supp.2d 289 (2000) ISLAND ONLINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. and the National Science Foundation, Defendants. No. CIV. 99-CV-6848 (DGT). United States District Court, E.D. New York. November 6, 2000. *290 *291 Daniel C. Marotta, Dowd & Morolta, New York, N.Y., for Is
Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc.public domain
2 F.Supp.2d 22 (1998) William THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., and National Science Foundation Defendants. No. CIV. 97-2412(TFH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 6, 1998. *23 *24 *25 William Herbert Bode, Wm.
Bridgetown Trucking, Inc. v. Acatech Solutions, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER Michael H. Simon, District Judge Plaintiff Bridgetown Trucking, Inc. (“BTI”) brings this lawsuit against Defendants Acatech Solutions, Inc. (“Acatech”) and Does 1 through 10 (“Doe Defendants”) 1 under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The CFAA, enacted in 1984, prohibits several forms of computer crimes, including accessing a com
Case: 21-1834 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2021-1834 ______________________ Appeal from the United Sta
Case: 21-1834 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2021-1834 ______________________ Appeal from the United Sta
Case: 19-1059 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 02/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellant v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee ______________________ 2019-1059, 2019-1060 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Pa
Case: 19-1061 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 02/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellant v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee ______________________ 2019-1061 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent an
Thomas, William v. Network Solutionspublic domain
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing a complaint filed against the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) and its private contractor, Network Solutions, Inc. Plaintiffs are individuals and entities who registered Internet domain names through Network
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.public domain
985 F.Supp. 949 (1997) LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., and Does 1-20, Defendants. No. CV 96-7438 DDP (ANX). United States District Court, C.D. California. November 17, 1997. *950 David Quinto, Grady L. White, Sandra L. Rierson, Paul S. Chan, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Oliver, Los Angeles, C
Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc.public domain
Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc., 2017 NCBC 72. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF FORSYTH 13 CVS 2595 SUSAN SYKES d/b/a ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC AND HEALTH CENTER; DAWN PATRICK; TROY LYNN; LIFEWORKS ON LAKE NORMAN, PLLC; BRENT BOST; and BOST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent No. 8,209,205 (“the ’205 Patent”). Aso before the Court is Defendant CiM Maintenance, Inc.’s (“CiM”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Docket No. 7). The Court held a Markman hearing on February 14,
Cegeste Barthelus v. G4S Government Solutions, Inc.public domain
PER CURIAM: Cegeste Barthelus, who is Haitian and black, appeals pro se the summary judgment the District Court granted his former employer, G4S Government Solutions, Inc. (“G4S” or “WSI”), 1 on his claims that, in violation of Title VII of the Civil R
Pasco v. Protus IP Solutions, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge. This is an “unsolicited fax” action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“Maryland TCPA”), Md. Code Ann. Com. Law §§ 14-3201, et seq., by a group of five Plaintiffs: (1) Martin Pasco; (2) Baltimore Podiatry Group, Drs. Scheffler &
Estrella v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLCpublic domain
778 F.Supp.2d 1041 (2011) Haidee ESTRELLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC, et al., Defendants. No. C 09-03156 SI. United States District Court, N.D. California. March 14, 2011. *1042 David R. Markham, James M. Treglio, R. Craig Clark, James Michael Treglio, Clark & Markham LLP, San Diego, CA, Barron E.
Microsoft Corp. v. Phoenix Solutions, Inc.public domain
741 F.Supp.2d 1156 (2010) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:10-cv-03846-MRP-SSx. United States District Court, C.D. California. August 18, 2010. *1157 Grant E. Kinsel, Michael J. Song, Perkins Coie LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Stacy Quan, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, for Plainti