Cases

ON MOTION ORDER CHEN, Circuit Judge. On November 20, 2014, this court issued an opinion in this interlocutory appeal. *1135 The opinion, reported at Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.2014),

Case: 22-20463 Document: 193-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 30, 2024

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 39 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Software Research, Inc. ("SRI") initiated this patent infringement suit against Defendant Dynatrace LLC ("Dynatrace"), alleging that Dynatrace has directly, indirectly, and willfully in

OPINION J. Brett Busby, Justice This interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special appearance presents the following question: when a lawyer who is not a Texas resident appears in a Texas court to represent a nonresident client, and the client wishes to sue the lawyer for malpractice and other claims related, to the representation, do Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the lawyer with re

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JULIE A. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff - Ezequiel Cabrera brings this action against his former employer, Perceptive Software, LLC, its parent company, Lexmark International, Inc., and three individual corporate officers of .Defendant Perceptive Software (“Perceptive”), Scott T.R. Coons, Cary D. DeCamp, and. Brent E. Flanders. Plaintiff alleges violatio

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom O’MALLEY and WALLACH, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. I respectfully dissent .from the court’s refusal to rehear this case en banc. Several issues warrant the court’s attention, for they raise fundamental concerns of the finality of judgments, of the relation between branches of government, of judicial resp

FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., GOBEIL and MARKLE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules February 2

Case: 20-1139 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 02/25/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BITMANAGEMENT SOFTWARE GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2020-1139 ______________________ Appeal from the United Sta

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JANE J. BOYLE, District Judge. Software AG USA, Inc. and Software AG, Inc. (together, “SAG”), joined by Nan-*728iq Systems LLC (“Naniq”) (collectively, “Defendants”),1 move for summary judgment on Plaintiff GlobeRanger Corporation’s (“GlobeRanger”) four state law claims, which inc

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-840C (Filed: September 9, 2019) (Refiled: September 24, 2019) 1 ************************************* * BITMANAGEMENT SOFTWARE * Copyright Infringement; Reproduction Rights; GMBH, * Distribution Rights; Authorization; Permission;

Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs Tort Claims in 1st Amended Complaint (Fid 7-23-12) JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge. The Court, having been informed by the parties that they submit on the *1010Court’s tentative ruling, previously issued, hereby GRANTS the Plainti

*753 OPINION AND ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Valdenor Reyes brings this action against his former employer Metromedia Software, Inc. on the ground that Metromedia violated his employment contract. Reyes has moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking a declaration that he is entitled to cer

OPINION & ORDER Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge Enigma Software Group USA, LLC (“Enigma”), a developer of computer security products, brings this action against Malwarebytes, Inc. (“Malwarebytes”), which Enigma claims is its direct competitor in the anti-malware and internet security market. Enigma markets SpyHunter, its leading ánti-malware program; Mal-warebytes markets Malwarebytes

787 F.Supp.2d 118 (2011) ASPECT SOFTWARE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Gary BARNETT, Defendant. Civil Action No. 11-10754-DJC. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. May 27, 2011. Order Denying Motion to Amend September 14, 2011. *121 Lawrence P. Murray, Michael V. Samarel, Burns & Levinson, Boston, MA, for P

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AS TO WHICH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED AND FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING (Docket No. 869) filed by ePlus Inc. (“ePlus”). For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. PROCEDURAL B

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 28] . Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff Aegis Software, Inc., filed a First Amended *1007Complaint (“FAC” or. “Complaint”) against Defendant 22nd District Agricultural Association. (ECF No. 27.) On October 3, 2016, Defendant filed a

ORDER NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge. ORDER entered. After consideration of defendant’s objections thereto, Report and Recommendation accepted and adopted. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This action arises out o

GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge: Software maker GlobeRanger obtained a $15 million judgment in a trade secret misappropriation trial against competitor Software AG. Software AG challenges that result on a number of grounds, but its principal argument is that GlobeRanger finds itself in a jurisdictional Catch-22. It argues that GlobeRanger’s trade secret claim is preempted by federal

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Currently before the Court are defendants’ SAP America, Inc., SAP Public Services, Inc. (collectively “SAP”) and Ernest Culver’s motions to dismiss plaintiffs Amended Complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part SAP’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS in part and

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA INTEGO SOFTWARE, LLC NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO d/b/a CRITICAL ALERT, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, CASE NO. 1D15-4082 v. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellee. ________________________