Cases

JUDGMENT Per Curiam (Prost, Chief Judge, Schall and Chen, Circuit Judges). This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ■ EDWARD J. DAVILA, United States District Judge On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation (“Max Sound”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against three defendants: Google, Inc., YouTube, LLC and On2 Technologies (collectively, “Defendants”), for the infringement of United States Patent No. 7,974,339 (the “’339 patent”). Dkt. No. 23. Max Sound has

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

7/8/2021 10:09:43 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (308 KB)

5/3/2021 12:16:35 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (321 KB)

4/6/2021 10:15:22 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (322 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

HUANG vs. RE/MAX LEADING EDGE, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 150 BIPING HUANG & another [Note 1] vs. RE/MAX LEADING EDGE & others. [Note 2] 101 Mass. App. Ct. 150 December 13, 2021 - June 9, 2022 Court Below: Superior Court, Middlesex County Present: Shin, Englander, & Hand, JJ. No. 21-P-155. Further appellat

20-3765-cv (L) Hyland v. Navient Corporation 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2021 5 6 (Argued: March 10, 2022 Decided: September 7, 2022) 7 8 Docket Nos. 20-3765-cv, 20-3766-cv 9 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 KATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA GARCIA

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2370 & 22-2413 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2370 & 22-2413 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS HUNLEY; MATTHEW No. 22-15293 SCOTT BRAUER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly D.C. No. 3:21-cv- Situated, 03778-CRB Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION INSTAGRAM, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appea

ACCEPTED 14-15-00024-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/6/2015 5:12:55 PM

OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge. This bitter patent suit involves two manufacturers of sheet pile wall systems, which are often used to construct temporary walls to retain soil or water. Plaintiff Skyline Steel, LLC (“Skyline”) sues Defendant PilePro, LLC (“PilePro”), seeking a declaration that it has not infringed one of PilePro’s patents and that the patent is invalid, as we

Opinion concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge Plager. Chen, Circuit Judge. In our previous decision in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. , we upheld the district court's judgment invalidating claims 1-4 and 7-15 of

MEMORANDUM PADOVA, District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...134 II. BACKGROUND ...134 III. THE CLASS CERTIFICATION RECORD .. .135 A. Background Regarding Ocwen’s In-House Balloon Loan Modifications and its Documentation Systems ... 135 B. The Class Representatives ... 136 1. Plaintiffs Li

CHEN, Circuit Judge. Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) appeals from four stipulated final judgment orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. 1 Each order granted: (1) final judgment of invalidity of claims 4-8, 11, 34, and 35 of U.S. Patent 6,034,652 (“the '652 patent”) and cla

Per Curiam. A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by appellants Athena Diagnostics, Inc., Oxford University Innovation Ltd., and the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellees Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC and Mayo Clinic. Several motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs were fi

2026 IL App (2d) 250055 No. 2-25-0055 Opinion filed July 9, 2026 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT MIRAMAR CAPITAL, LLC, and ROBERT KALMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross- Appellants,

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur