Cases

Dyk, Circuit Judge. A jury found Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) liable for infringement of four patents owned by Finjan, Inc. (“Fin-jan”) and' awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. After trial, the district court concluded that the ’844 patent was patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and denied Blue Coat’s post-trial mo

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 89 HOWARD R. LLOYD, United States Magistrate Judge Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) moves to strike Plaintiff Fin-jan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Patent Local Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (the ’844 Patent), 6,956,968 (

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, United States District Judge Before the Court are the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan") seeks summary judgment that Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s ("Blue Coat") Internet security software products infringe one of its patents and that several of its patents are not invalid. Blue Coat seeks summary judgment that certain of its products do not infringe several

ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION . In this patent case, plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) accuses Sophos, Inc. (“Sophos”) of infringing five of Finjan’s patents in the malware security software space. Following a two week trial, a jury found that Sophos infringed all five of Finjan’s asserted patents and awarded damages of $15

Case: 22-1048 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ FINJAN LLC, FKA FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SONICWALL, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2022-1048 ______________________ Appeal from the United St

Case: 19-2041 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC., NETSCOUT SYSTEMS TEXAS, LLC, FKA TEKTRONIX TEXAS, LLC DBA TEKTRONIX COMMUNICATIONS, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2019-2

Case: 19-2192 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TECSEC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADOBE INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant SAS INSTITUTE, INC., SAP AMERICA, INC., SAP AG, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SYBASE, INC., SOFTWARE AG, SOFTWARE AG, INC., ORACLE CORPORATIO

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Dialpad, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. The Court will grant the motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff RingCentral, Inc. and Defendant Dialpad, Inc. are competitors in the "cloud-based unified communications" market. ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 1-2. Both offer voice, video, and messaging services. Id. RingCentral

Case: 19-1133 Document: 90 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIOGEN MA INC., Plaintiff -Appellee v. EMD SERONO, INC., PFIZER INC., Defendants-Appellants BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendants _________________

Case: 23-2437 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. FOX CORP., FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC, FOX SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-2437 _________________

Case: 19-1835 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., UNILOC 2017 LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________

Taranto, Circuit Judge. Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. and Elbit Systems of America, LLC (collectively, Elbit) brought this action against Hughes Network Systems, LLC (and other defendants no longer in the case). Elbit alleged that Hughes infringed Elbit's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,240,073 and 7,245,874. The jury found system claims 2-4 of the '073 patent infringed and not invalid, and it awa

Taranto, Circuit Judge Ancora Technologies, Inc.'s U.S. Patent 6,411,941 is entitled "Method of Restricting Software Operation Within a License Limitation." The patent describes and claims methods of limiting a computer's running of software not authorized for that computer to run. It issued in 2002, and the patentability of all claims was confirmed in a reexamination in 2010. The '941

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are the following motions: *843• Defendant Apple Inc.'s ("Apple") Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages (Docket No. 1018);1 • Apple's Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgme

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: *338Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 35). The issues are fully briefed. (D.I. 36, 37, 45). The Court held oral argument on November 16, 2018.1 (D.I. 51). For the reasons that follow, the Court grant

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Now before the Court is plaintiff/counter-defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which seeks a finding that U.S. Patent No. 6,980,522 is patent-ineligible under

The linguistic distinction is important in order to apply the correct burden of proof. Under 35 U.S.C. § 282, a U.S. patent is afforded a statutory presumption of validity. A party seeking to prove an *404invalidity defense to infringement-su

Case: 22-1092 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 12/16/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADASA INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2022-1092 ______________________ Appeal from the United Sta

Case: 20-2044 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. APPLE INC., VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2020-2044 ______________________ Appeal from the United

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES AND DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Ron Clark, United States District Judge Plaintiff Dr. Mark A. Barry brought suit, asserting that Defendant Medtronic, Inc. indirectly infringed two patents,1 U.S. Patent No. 7,670,358 (“the ’358 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,361,121 (“the ’121 Patent”), which relate to a system and metho