Cases

14-60; 14-61 United States v. Apple Inc.; Texas v. Apple Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2014 (Argued: March 10, 2015 Decided: May 28, 2015) Docket Nos. 14-60, 14-61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-A

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE,' District Judge: Two domestic plaintiffs seek recovery of damages from their foreign sales of e-books. They allege that the defendants, all domestic corporations, entered into a price-fixing conspiracy that injured the plaintiffs’ ability to compete not only in this country but also abroad. For the following reasons, the plaintiffs are permitted to amend their com

Chen, Circuit Judge. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (PersonalWeb) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concluding that Apple demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 24, 32, 81, 82, and 86 of

LOHIER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: I join in the majority opinion except for part II.B.2 relating to the application of the rule of reason. In my view, Apple’s appeal rises or falls based on the application of the per se rule. That rule clearly applies to the central agreement in this case (and the only agreement alleged to be unlawful): the publishers’ horizontal

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: On December 14, 2013, defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed a motion by order to *266show cause for a stay of one aspect of the injunctive relief granted by this Court’s Final Judgment of September 5, 2013 (“Judgment”). The motion is addressed to the External Compliance Monitor (“Monitor”)

Opinion and Order of June 22, 2012 POSNER, Circuit Judge. In my opinion and order of May 22, following the Daubert hearing held on the 16th, I ruled that proposed testimony by three of the parties’ damages experts (one for Apple and two for Motorola) was inadmissible. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-8540, 2012 WL 1959560 (N.D.Ill. May 22, 2012); see Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703. This rul

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge. Table of Contents PROCEDURAL HISTORY.......................................................645 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS......................................................647 BACKGROUND................................................................648 A. Development of the E-book

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Apple Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of various claims of PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310, asserting unpatentability for obviousness based on two prior-art references. After instituting review, the Patent *989 Trial and

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: Plaintiff the United States of America (the “Government”) brings this civil antitrust action against defendants Apple, Inc. (“Apple”); Hachette Book Group, Inc. (“Hachette”); HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. (“HarperCollins”); Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GMBH and Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a MacMillan (collectively, “MacMillan”); The

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: DNAML Pty, Ltd. (“DNAML”) brings this action against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and five book publishers (“Publishers”), pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, to recover damages it asserts it sustained due to the defendants’ conspiracy to fix prices and reduce competition in the e-book industry. The defendants have moved to dismiss the co

Memorandum Adopting Report and Recommendation re Indefiniteness of '884, '651, & '715 Patents RON CLARK, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, and he has recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of indefindteness regarding United States Patent No. 6,271,884, U.S. Patent No. 6,838,651, and U.S. Patent No. 6

24 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253 APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Lawrence R. Cagney, Real Party in Interest. No. B177857. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One. February 17, 2005. *820 Pillsbury Winthrop, Richard S. Ruben

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16506 Plaintiff-counter- defendant-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640- v. YGR APPLE, INC., Defendant-counter- OPINION claimant- Appellee. EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16695

85 F.Supp.2d 1344 (1999) Janet M. RAU, Plaintiff, v. APPLE-RIO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., d/b/a T.J. Applebee's; Café Ventures, Inc.; Apple Restaurants, Inc.; and Steve Smith, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 1:97-CV-2345-GGB. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. September 30, 1999. *1345 R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr., Will

Apple A.C. & Appliance Serv., Inc. v Apple Home Heating Corp. (2018 NY Slip Op 05567) Apple A.C. & Appliance Serv., Inc. v Apple Home Heating Corp. 2018 NY Slip Op 05567 Decided on August 1, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 25-2935 D.C. No. Plaintiff-ctr-defendant - 4:20-cv-05640- Appellee, YGR v. APPLE INC., OPINION

130 Cal.Rptr.2d 335 (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1355 APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Appellant, Lawrence E. Stone, as County Assessor, etc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. No. H023064. Court of Appeal, Sixth District. January 31, 2003.

579 A.2d 1115 (1990) Stanley STAHL, Plaintiff, v. APPLE BANCORP, INC., Jerome R. McDougal, Edward J. Brown, George V. Comfort, Thomas E. Dewey, Jr., Grace J. Fippinger, Roscoe C. Ingalls, Jr., Robert A. Kavesh, John L. Procope, Richard J. Schwartz, Ralph A. Weller and John E. Zuccotti, Defendants. Richard KESSLER, Plaintiff, v. APPLE BANCORP, INC., Jerome R. McDougal, Edward J. Brown, George V. Comfort, Thomas E. Dewey, Jr., Grace J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On March 31, 2010, plaintiff MobileMe-dia Ideas LLC (“MMI”) filed suit against defendant Apple, Inc. (“defendant”), alleging infringement of a number of patents including- U.S. Patent No. RE 39,231 (“the ’231 patent”). As part of an extensive motion practice, on November 8, 2012, the court construed the relevant claim terms

DYK, Circuit Judge. SightSound Technologies, LLC (“Sight-Sound”) is the owner of U.S. Patéht No. 5,191,573 (the “'573 patent”) and 5,966,440 (the “ '440 patent”). Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for covered business method (“CBM”) review of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the '573 patent and claims 1, 64, and 95 of the '440 patent