Cases

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The principal issue discussed by the panel majority is the construction of claim terms that determine whether Patent No. 5,449,767 covers direct detection of the signaling moiety, or only indirect detection. The distinction between direct and indirect detection is stated to be material to whether Applera infringes the '767 patent. The principal disputed term concerns the sig

599 F.3d 1325 (2010) ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., and Yale University, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLERA CORP. and Tropix, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 2009-1281. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 26, 2010. *1327 L. Gene Spears, Baker Botts L.L.P., of Houston, TX, argued for plaintiffs-app

ORDER Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al. (Enzo) moves for a 60-day extension of time to file their brief or, in the alternative, to dismiss without prejudice their appeal of the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., No. 3:04-CV-929. Enzo moves for dismissal without prejudice to reinstatement of the appeal. Enzo moves to withdraw the two above-listed

ORDER PER CURIAM. Defendants-Appellees Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The panel requested a response from Plaintiffs-Appellants Enzo Biochem, Inc., Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., and Yale University. The court granted Defendants-Appellees leave to file a reply. The petition for rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, a

MAYER, Circuit Judge. ORDER Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (Applera) and Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al. (Enzo Biochem) each petition for permission to appeal a claim construction order certified by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut as one involving a controlling issue of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate

468 F.Supp.2d 359 (2007) ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLERA CORP. et al., Defendants. No. 3:04cv929 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. January 5, 2007. *360 David A. Kelly, Emerson V. Briggs, III, Jeffrey T. Perez, Jennifer A. Albert, Scott L. Robertson, Hunton & Williams, Washington, DC, Greg

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER [DOC. # 186] ARTERTON, District Judge. On June 7, 2004, plaintiffs Enzo Biochem, Inc., Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., and Yale University (collectively “Enzo”) brought this suit for patent infringement against defendants Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (collectively “Applera”). Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaims [Doc. # 13] wer

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Same case below, 599 F.3d 1325.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied. Same case below, 599 F.3d 1325.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge. Plaintiffs Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively “Enzo” or “Plaintiffs”) bring these actions for patent infringement against Defendants.1 Before the Court is Defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment that some of the accused products (1) do not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 4,994,373 (the “'373 P

ORDER SAM SPARKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE BE IT REMEMBERED on the 28th day of September 2016, the Court held a hearing in the above-styled cause, and the parties appeared by and through counsel. Before the Court are Defendant Zoho Corporation (Zoho)’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#157], Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, Versata)’s Response [#188] in

ORDER DENYING GPNE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR FOR A NEW TRIAL; DENYING APPLE’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge On October 22, 2014, after seven days of trial and four and a half hours of deliberation, a jury concluded that Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) did not infringe two patents owned by Plaintiff GPNE Corp. (“Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Before the Court are various motions filed by Defendant Pure Storage, Inc. (“Pure”) and by Plaintiffs EMC Corporation, EMC International Company, and EMC Information Systems ■ International (collectively, “EMC”). Pure brings three separate motions presently under -consideration: Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 198) and related briefing (D

MEMORANDUM ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. Plaintiffs Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment, LLC (collectively, “Cognex”) sue defendants Microscan Systems, Inc. and The Code Corporation for patent infringement. Cognex alleges that Microscan’s Mobile Hawk Direct Part Mark Reader product, which is designed and sold by the defendants, infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,8

REYNA, Circuit Judge. This case comes before us on appeal of a final judgment that Applied Media Technologies Corporation (“AMTC”) does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,991,374 (“'374 patent”). Info-Hold, owner of the '374 patent, asserted the patent against AMTC and Muzak LLC in separate suits before the same judge in the Southern District of Ohio. Those suits led to separate a

Case: 18-2220 Document: 69 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NEVRO CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC NEUROMODULATION CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross-Appellants ______________________ 2018-2220, 2018-2349

In the United States Court of Federal Claims SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, No. 17-cv-825 Defendant, Filed: August 6, 2021 and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Intervenor-Defendant, and L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case: 19-1169 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Appellant v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP., Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2019-1169, 2019-1260 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Pa

Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Exmark Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s ("Exmark") motion for summary judgment to reaffirm the that the asserted claims of United States Patent No. 5,987,863 ("the '863 patent") are not invalid in view of the prior art, Filing No. 722.1 This is an action for patent infringement that has been remanded from t