Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
10 opinions for “Rein Tech, Inc. v. Flo Technologies, Inc.”
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LINN. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. LINN, Circuit Judge. This appeal returns to us following remand from the United States Supreme Court. See Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2111, 189 L.Ed.2d 52 (2014). Because our prior decisions in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.,
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.public domain
580 F.3d 1301 (2009) LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Lucent Technologies Guardian I LLC, Counterclaim Defendant, and Multimedia Patent Trust, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. GATEWAY, INC., Gateway Country Stores LLC, Gateway Companies, Inc., Cowabunga Enterprises, Inc., and Gateway Manufacturing LLC, Defendants/Counterclaimants, and Dell Inc., Defendant/Counterclaimant, and Mic
Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.public domain
592 F.Supp.2d 727 (2009) TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. C.A. No. 04-876-GMS. United States District Court, D. Delaware. January 6, 2009. *733 Steven J. Balick, John G. Day, Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE, John M. Wi
Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC (“plaintiff’) filed the present patent litigation against 17 parties on September 23, 2010.1 (D.I. 1) Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint (D.I. 33) on October 28, 2010, which defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) f
Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.public domain
SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Before the Court are the parties' post-trial motions (Dkt. Nos. 648, 649, 650, 661, 662, 666), plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. Nos. 660, 666), and two administrative motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 684, 697). After hearing argument and considering the parties' materials, the Court rules as follows.
NO. 01-15-00267-CV FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR THE 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3/25/2015 12:01:47 PM AT HOUSTON CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.public domain
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in No. 4:0
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorppublic domain
Chief Justice DURRANT, opinion of the Court: Introduction T1 This case concerns a dispute about proprietary plans to develop a power plant. USA Power, LLC engaged in extensive work to research and develop a power plant project in Mona, Utah-its Spring Canyon "vision." It claims that this vision is a trade secret, that PacifiCorp misapp
McConnell v. Federal Election Commissionpublic domain
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. “To an imagination of any scope the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command of ideas.” —Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 478 (1897). I believe the statute before us is unconstitu
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS