⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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 “Ginsberg v. Google Inc.”

Knapp v. Ginsbergpublic domain
California Court of Appeal · 2021-08-05 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 8/5/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR BROOKE KNAPP, B307559 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV11400) v. LARRY GINSBERG et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Super
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012-04-05 · Published · cited 97× · 676 F.3d 19; 102 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1283; 2012 WL 1130851; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6909
676 F.3d 19 (2012) VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Black Entertainment Television, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YOUTUBE, INC., YouTube, LLC, Google, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. The Football Association Premier League Limited, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Bourne Co., Cal IV Entertainment, LLC, Cherry Lane Music Publishing Company, Inc.,
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014-10-17 · Published · cited 9× · 769 F.3d 1114; 112 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1628; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19976; 2014 WL 5303000
HUGHES, Circuit Judge. CardSoft alleges that Appellants infringe two patents directed to software for small, specialized computers, like payment terminals. In construing the patent *1116 claims, the district court adopted Card-Soft’s proposed construction for the claim term “virtual machine.” App
California Court of Appeal · 2016-05-25 · Published · cited 1× · 247 Cal. App. 4th 884; 202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 395; 2016 WL 3001805; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 419
*888 Opinion JENKINS, J. In this appeal we hold that this lawsuit filed by the People, on behalf of the State of California (the State), under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; UCL), 1 agains
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015-12-02 · Published · cited 17× · 807 F.3d 1346; 117 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1354; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20847; 2015 WL 7755661
HUGHES, Circuit Judge. The case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. In CardSoft v. VeriFone, Inc., 769 F.3d 1114 (Fed.Cir.2014), we decided an appeal by defendant-appellants (collectively, VeriFone) from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In construing the patent claims, the district court adopted pla
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2015-01-13 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 05-13-01503-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/13/2015 3:31:15 PM
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2013-05-06 · Published · cited 30× · 110 Fed. Cl. 564
Pre-award bid protest; Cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record; Standard of review — Bannum; Proposals received by government mail server, but not forwarded to the next server in the government mail system, were covered by the Government Control exception to the “late is late” rule found in 48 C.F.R. § 52.212-l(f)(2)(i)(B); Plain meaning of regulation controls; Watter
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-03-18 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 01-15-00126-CV
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002-05-31 · Published · cited 12× · 201 F. Supp. 2d 401; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9537; 2002 WL 1126046
201 F.Supp.2d 401 (2002) AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., v. UNITED STATES, et al. Multnomah County Public Library, et al., v. United States of America, et al. Nos. CIV.A. 01-1303, CIV.A. 01-1322. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 31, 2002. *402 *403 <
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · 2024-05-08 · Published · cited 0×
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION No. 04-23-01067-CV IN RE MESILLA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION and Robert Stowbridge Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2021-01-21 · Published · cited 31× · 986 F.3d 361
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1461 RXD MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. IP APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT LLC; APPLE, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Jud
State v. Wattspublic domain
Utah Supreme Court · 2021-09-30 · Published · cited 1× · 498 P.3d 365; 2021 UT 38
2021 UT 60 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. JOSEPH ANDREW WATTS, Appellant. No. 20180976 Heard November 17, 2020 Filed September 28, 2021 On Direct Appeal
District Court, District of Columbia · 2022-06-02 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BROIDY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC et al., Plaintiffs, No. 19-cv-150 (DLF) v. NICOLAS D. MUZIN et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Broidy Capital Management, LLC, and Elliott Broidy (together, “Broidy”) brought this suit
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011-10-12 · Published · cited 80× · 659 F.3d 1142
659 F.3d 1142 (2011) ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PYLON MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant-Appellee. No. 2011-1096. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. October 13, 2011. *1144 Mark A. Hannemann, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, of New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Michael J. Le
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015-08-20 · Published · cited 69× · 799 F.3d 701
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. These appeals present several issues concerning class action litigation and settlements. The most general is whether the “coupon settlement” provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1712, allowed the district court to award class counsel an attorney fee based on the lodestar method rather than the value of the redeemed coupons. Our answer to that question is yes. In A
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018-04-02 · Published · cited 93× · 886 F.3d 803
THOMAS, Chief Judge: These consolidated appeals are the latest round of a long-running dispute over *812salmon and steelhead species listed under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 - 1544. Three fede
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2024-11-27 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 23-50869 Document: 181-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 23-50869 November 27, 2024 ____________
California Court of Appeal · 2016-01-07 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 12/11/15; part. pub. order 1/7/16 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ARTYUN VARDANYAN, F069953 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 11CECG02112) v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006-08-23 · Published · cited 1× · 460 F.3d 1125; 2006 WL 2422681
B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The Columbia River stretches more than 1,200 miles from its headwaters in Canada to the Pacific Ocean. It drains an enormous swath of the northwestern United States (258,000 square miles). This great *1146river empties more water into the Pacific Ocean than any other river in North or South America. Description
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2026-04-09 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT G.B., a minor, by and through her No. 25-2473 Guardian, G.P.; M.W., a minor, by and D.C. No. through her Guardian R.W.; M.A., a 2:23-cv-10345- minor, by and through her Guardian MWF-AGR M.T.; Z.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian S.W.; M.M., a mino