Cases

470 B.R. 374 (2012) In re QIMONDA AG, Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding. Michael Jaffé, Appellant, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Appellees. Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-0008. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. May 7, 2012. *376 Gilbert David Dean, II, Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard

MEMORANDUM ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RON CLARK, United States District Judge Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC filed suit against Defendants Samsung, LG, and HTC, and U.S. subsidiaries of each of them, claiming that Defendants’ phones, tablets, and other electronic devices infringed five of Affinity’s patents

*60 MEMORANDUM ORDER JOSEPH N. LAPLANTE, District Judge. The parties have filed a number of motions to exclude evidence from the upcoming trial of this action, which arises out of a house fire that allegedly started in a home theater system manufactured by defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and sold by defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. By way o

827 F.Supp.2d 47 (2011) Ramon RODRIGUEZ and Linda Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and Axcelis Technologies, Ltd., Defendants. Civil No. 09-11028-NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. November 7, 2011. *49 Alan L. Cantor, Edward M. Swartz, Swartz & Swartz, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is currently before the Court on two motions filed by plaintiff Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or ‘VIS”) regarding a counterclaim advanced by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung” or “Defendants”). ECF Nos. 141,

MMG Insurance v. Samsung Electronics American, et al. CV-11-430-JL 6/5/13 P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MMG Insurance Company v. Civil N o . 11-cv-430-JL Opinion N o . 2013 DNH 084P Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc. MEMORANDUM ORDER The parties have filed a numbe

157 F.Supp.2d 172 (2001) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. Consumer Electronics Assn. Electronic Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Soundview Technologies, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, et al Counterclaim Defendants. No. 3:00CV754 JBA. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. July 16, 2001.

157 F.Supp.2d 190 (2001) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. Consumer Electronics Association; Electronic Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Soundview Technologies, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, Et al. Counterclaim Defendants. No. 3:00CV754(JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. June 14, 2001.

334 F.3d 1314 OMEGA ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.RAYTEK CORPORATION, Davis Instrument Manufacturing Company, Inc., Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, and Dwyer Instruments, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.Raytek Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Omega Engineering, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, andNewport Electronics, Inc., Defendant. No. 01-1546. No. 02-1478.

ACCEPTED 03-16-00203-CV 13816645 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

WILLOCKS, Administrative Judge *37MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 18, 2016) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Ford Motor Company and Metro Motors’ (hereinafter, “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment filed on October 31, 2014. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an Order sua sponte and granted the parties

136 Nev., Advance Opinion 21.0 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, LLC, A No. 79689-COA NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND LAS VEGAS SANDS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, vs.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GOLDBERG, District Judge. This case involves a patent dispute regarding jacketed light emitting diode (“LED”) assemblies and light strings. Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, Bortex Industry Company Limited (“Bortex”) brought this declaratory action against Defendant/Counter-claimant, Fiber Optic Designs, Inc. (“FOD”), asserting that two of FOD’s patents, U.S. Patent Numbers 7,220,

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Ford Motor Company to Produce Documents Listed in its Supplemental ASO (Automotive Safety Office) Privilege Log and for Sanctions. (ECF *229No. 536).1 Defendant Ford

MINORA, J., I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Plaintiff iDropped, Inc.’s (“iDropped”) Request for a Permanent Injunction against Defendant Timothy Summo (“Summo”). Plaintiff iDropped filed its request for a preliminary injunction on February 24, 2015, which was denied without prejudice by the Court. A hearing for permanent injunctive relief was then held on March 3, 2015 before the undersigned J

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/22/2020 08:09 AM CDT - 124 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports LANHAM v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. Cite as 305 Neb. 124 Alexander Lanham, appellant and cross-appel

Case: 20-1184 Document: 135 Page: 1 Filed: 12/01/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MODERNATX, INC., FKA MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC., Appellant v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION, FKA PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., Cross-Appellant ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER S

702 F.Supp.2d 1139 (2010) NO DOUBT, a California Partnership, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. No. CV 09-8872 SVW (VBKx). United States District Court, C.D. California. January 14, 2010. *1140 Bert H. Deixler, Gil Nathan Peles, Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

313 Ga. 811 FINAL COPY S21G1147. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC v. BUCHANAN et al. BETHEL, Justice. In a civil lawsuit in Georgia, the discovery process allows litigants to gather information about a case from other litigants and third parties in an orderly and defined manner. Georgia, like most states, also provides various mechanisms for litigants and third parties to seek relief from the demands of discovery. One such method is by moving for a protective order under OCGA § 9-11-26