Cases

SCHALL, Circuit Judge. InterDigital Communications Corporation and InterDigital Technology Corporation (collectively, “InterDigital”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas that (i) granted leave to Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) to intervene in proceedings relating to this previously-settled lawsuit between Ericsson, Inc. (“Eri

625 F.3d 97 (2010) Francis J. FARINA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NOKIA INC.; NEC America; Ericsson Wireless Comm., Inc.; Motorola, Inc.; Sprint PCS, L.P.; Audiovox Communications Corporation; Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.; Matsushita Corporation of America, also known as Panasonic Corporation; Philips Electronic North America Corp.; Qualcomm Incorporated also known as Qualcomm, Inc; Samsung Tel

TARANTO, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part. I join all of the court’s opinion except part II.A.2, which upholds the judgment of infringement of the '215 patent. I conclude that the district court incorrectly construed the '215 patent’s claim language pertaining to the invention’s message field. And there is no infringement under the construction that I think is correct. On this one issue, I respectfully dissen

402 F.3d 430 J. Douglas PINNEY, M.D.; Patricia S. Colonell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Francis J. Farina, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Garrett J. Naquin; Ronald Leblanc; Judith A. Kaufman; Asher Rubenstein; Crystall Gilliam; Dimitri Mack; Riedy Gimpelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Sarah Dahlgren, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

Filed: March 28, 2005 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT _______________ No. 03-1433 _______________ (CA-01-1421-CCB; CA-01-1456-CCB; CA-01-3259-CCB; CA-01-3260-CCB; CA-01-3261-CCB; CA-01-3899-CCB) J. DOUGLAS PINNEY, M.D.; PATRICIA S. COLONELL, individually and on behalf of all others

MEMORANDUM BLAKE, District Judge. The plaintiffs in this multidistriet litigation have brought five class actions against defendants in the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, and Louisiana. Each count of each complaint is brought, on its face, under state statutory or common law.1 Asserting federal jurisdiction under several theories, the defendants filed notice

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1484 ERICSSON, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION and INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants,

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. PROST, Circuit Judge. Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) appeals from a judgment of infringement and award of damages by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Case No. 3:98-CV-2903, 2003 WL 21750710. Ericsson specifically appeals the district court’s constru

MEMORANDUM ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. Presently before the Court are Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff, TruePosition, Inc.’s (“TruePosition”) Complaint submitted by Defendants Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), LM Ericsson Telephone Company (Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson) (“Ericsson”), Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“ALU”), and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) (collectively,

Case: 20-1440 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 10/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY, NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, FKA NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS US LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2020-1440,

416 F.Supp.2d 525 (2006) GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. NOKIA, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 2:05-CV-170. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. February 17, 2006. *526 *527 Thomas John Ward, Jr., Law Office of T. John Ward Jr. PC, Longview, TX, Alisa Anne

*502Justice HECHT, joined by Justice BRISTER, dissenting. When construing pleadings under the eight-corners rale to determine whether they state a claim an insurer must defend, we are to be liberal.1 Liberal does not mean naive; it does not mean blind. The pleadings in the five putative class actions at issue here all allege t

407 F.Supp.2d 522 (2005) INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION et al., Petitioner, v. NOKIA CORPORATION, Respondent. No. 05 Civ.6180 WHP. United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 28, 2005. *523 *524 *525 Mark D. Flanagan, Wilson Sonsini Goodr

Case Number: 05-04-01729-CV 12/19/2008 Case stored in record room 12/05/2008 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 12/05/2008 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 12/05/2008 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 12/05/2008 Mandate issued 10/17/2008 Amicus Curiae Brief received 10/08/2008 Case forwarded to Court 10/07/2008 Motion for Rehearing for pet #2 - Filed 10/07/2008 Phone call from Clerk's Office 10/01/2008 M/E/T to file Motion for Rehearing disposed

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: We live in an age in which the intercon-nectivity of a wide range of modern technological products is vital. To achieve that interconnection, patent-holders often join together in compacts requiring licensing certain patents on reasonable and non *1030

REYNA, Circuit Judge, concurring. The Constitution bestows on Congress the power to secure inventors’ “exclusive Right[s]” to their inventions. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8. The utility of this power would, according to James Madison, “scarcely be questioned” as the rights to inventions *648“belong to the inventors.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 214 (L. Gol

REYNA, Circuit Judge, concurring. The Constitution bestows on Congress the power to secure inventors’ “exclusive Right[s]” to their inventions. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8. The utility of this power would, according to James Madison, “scarcely be questioned” as the rights to inventions “belong to the inventors.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 214 (L. Goldman ed. 2008) (J. Madison). In the years since Congress first

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════ No. 06-1030 ════════════

OPINION IRENAS, Senior District Judge. This is a patent infringement suit brought by Plaintiff High Point SARL1, which currently owns the four patents-in-suit: the '090 patent, the '308 patent, the '347 patent, and the '091 patent.2 The patents disclose methods for designing and implementing cellular telephone network infrastructure equipment used

631 F.3d 1257 (2010) WIAV SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Palm, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Personal Communications Devices LLC and Personal Communic