Cases

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. ORDER The parties move jointly (1) to remand to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, due to settlement, to allow the district court to act on their joint Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion and (2) for an extension of time for Freedom Wireless, Inc. to file its principal brief. The parties further request that this court’s order al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOBILE NOW, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 19-918 (JDB) SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Sprint is one of the largest wireless telecommunications carriers in the United States. For years, Mobile Now acted as one of Sprint’s “authorized repre

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable William ■ C. Turnoff, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 10, 2017. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL ARBITRATION FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable John J. O’Sullivan, United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 1, 2024 Decided February 11, 2025 No. 23-7044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. MARK J. O’CONNOR AND SARA F. LEIBMAN, AND MARK J. O’CONNOR AND SARA F. LEIBMAN, APPELLANTS v. USCC WIRELESS INVESTMENT, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Case: 21-1760 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1760 ______________________ Appeal from the United Stat

Case: 21-1760 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1760 ______________________ Appeal from the United Stat

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TEAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim ) Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N24C-02-141 MAA CCLD ) PREMIER WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, ) LLC, as successor in interest to

No. 04-01-00724-CV HEARTLAND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Appellants v. Azalia GARCIA, et al., Appellees From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas Trial Court No. 98-05-08388-CV Honorable Mike

STARK, Chief District Judge, dissenting.* The dispositive issue in this case is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the Terry patents would understand the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the disputed claim term, “communications path,” to include wireless communications. If wireless communications are not within the scope of the patent cl

Case: 22-1925 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC, OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC, PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, UNWIRED PLANET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellant

MOORE, J. *633The parties appeal and cross-appeal a judgment after a jury trial in this business dispute. Plaintiff and cross-defendant IIG Wireless, Inc. (IIG) obtained a judgment of $401,860 against defendant and cross-complainant John Yi. IIG also sued Lauren Kim, Yi's fiancée, who moved for and was granted a nonsuit during trial. Yi obtaine

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Grand Wireless, Inc. (“Grand”) brought this action in Massachusetts state court against Verizon Wireless, Inc. (“Verizon”) and Verizon employee Erin McCahill. It alleged a violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against Ms. McCahill, as well as several state law claims against both Ms. McCahill and Verizon. The de

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge This is a securities fraud class action relating to the acquisition of Ruckus Wireless Inc. (“Ruckus”) by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (“Brocade”) in May 2016. Lead Plaintiff is the City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System, one of the shareholders of Ruckus. Defendants are as

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ZOBEL, DISTRICT JUDGE. Plaintiff Skyhook Wireless, Inc., alleges that defendant Google, Inc., has infringed several of its patents. Defendant has moved for summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness and non-infringement on the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,154,454, 8,223,074, and 8,242,960 .(Docket ## 464, 466); summary judgment of non-infringement on the asser

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge At issue on defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in this diversity breach of contract case are two primary questions: (i) whether the suit is barred by Virginia’s five-year statute of limitations for actions on a written contract, which in turn depends on whether the contract obligations are divisible or indivisible and

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2022 ME 36 Docket: BCD-21-135 Argued: December 8, 2021 Decided: June 23, 2022 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.* STATE TAX ASSESSOR v. TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. JABAR, J. [¶1] TracFone Wireless, Inc., appeals from a summar

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2022 ME 36 Docket: BCD-21-135 Argued: December 8, 2021 Decided: June 23, 2022 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.* STATE TAX ASSESSOR v. TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. JABAR, J. [¶1] TracFone Wireless, Inc., appeals from a summar

ORDER GRANTING TRACFONE’S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(f) JOSE E. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon TracFone’s Motion for Order Authorizing Service of Process Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff TracFone Wireless, Inc. (“TracFone”) seeks

ORDER GRANTING TRACFONE’S MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AFTER DEFAULT AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER TO CONDUCT FORECLOSURE SALE KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion [D.E. 6] of Plaintiff TracFone Wireless, Inc. (“TracFone”) for an entry of final judgment of foreclosure after default and for the appointment of a special master to con