• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
15 results

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Docket 6:21-cv-00121, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 4, 2021)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsCLOSED, PATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7933431
819492485530798878949
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Defendant Apple, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

No. 42 ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion to Transfer Case Signed by Judge Alan D Albright

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 42 (W.D.Tex. Aug. 22, 2022)
The public factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on the situation which existed at the time of filing, rather than relying on hindsight knowledge of the defendant’s forum preference.
The size of Apple’s Austin campus, job openings, and “chip” development are not factors which, by themselves, demonstrate that potentially relevant employee witnesses, or physical documents for that matter, are located in the WDTX.
As has been explained repeatedly, it is improper for movants to seek transfer but fail to provide sufficient discovery or conduct thorough investigations as to sources of proof and witnesses within the transferor forum.
“[W]here there is a co-pending litigation ... involving the same patent-in-suit, … pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, ... the Federal Circuit cannot say the trial court clearly abuses its discretion in denying transfer.” In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d at 1346 n.3.
Apple maintains that this factor strongly favors transfer for three reasons: “(1) Apple’s work on the research, design, development, and operation of the accused features primarily takes place there; (2) Apple’s headquarters are located there; and, (3) all of Apple’s likely witnesses are based there.
cite Cite Document

No. 32 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TOCOMPEL FURTHER VENUE DISCOVERY

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 32 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 30, 2021)
On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC served on Apple written venue and jurisdictional discovery pertaining to Apple’s motion, including Requests for Production.
Documents sufficient to identify all Apple employees, agents, contractors, or other proxies who have (a) worked in, (b) resided in, or (c) supported or worked on Apple physical equipment or software located in the Texas ... , including, … documents sufficient to identify each employee’s name, title, ... a description of the employee’s responsibilities, ... employment.
Documents sufficient to show any development, support, programming, design or sales and marketing of the Accused Products or Features located in or accessible in Texas during the Relevant Time Period.
Identification of employees in nine groups listed in Apple’s venue declaration who Apple claims were instrumental in developing Accused Products.
Based on this review and the representations from Apple, the Court DENIES Gesture’s motion to compel as to Gesture’s Request for Production Nos. 2, 5, and 9, and the additional categories of documents 1- 4 reproduced above.
cite Cite Document

No. 12 Standing Order Regarding Filing Documents Under Seal and Redacted Pleadings in Patent Cases

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 12 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 12, 2021)
Standing Order
Nevertheless, parties in patent cases routinely produce and rely on information that is confidential.
Therefore, in all patent cases pending before the undersigned, the Court hereby grants leave for any party to file materials containing confidential information under seal without filing a separate motion seeking leave of the Court to do so.
The parties need not file redacted versions of exhibits to such documents.
The publicly available version shall be labeled “PUBLIC VERSION.” Cooperating to file the public version shall not be deemed as agreeing that the redacted information is actually confidential.
This Order shall apply in all patent cases, but shall not require parties to file public versions of pleadings filed before the date of this Order.
cite Cite Document

No. 5 Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness v2.1. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 5 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 19, 2020)
Standing Order
In all patent cases pending before the undersigned, after all Defendants have responded to the initial pleadings (whether by Answer or Motion), the Parties are directed to meet-and-confer within seven (7) days of the last1 Answer or Motion in response to the Original Complaint to discuss any pre-Markman issues and the Parties shall jointly file the Case Readiness Status Report (“CRSR”) in the format attached as Exhibit A promptly thereafter.
Plaintiff [name] and Defendant [name(s)], hereby provide the following status report in advance of the initial Case Management Conference (CMC).
[If a Plaintiff has already served Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs”), note the date of service.
Note: Per the Court’s Order Governing Proceeding, Plaintiff must serve PICs no later than 7 days before the CMC]
or [The parties identified the following pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC [list].
cite Cite Document

No. 14 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand Defendant Apple Inc.'s Answer to Original Complaint ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 14 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 29, 2021)
Answer
Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
(Non-Infringement) Apple does not and has not infringed any valid claim of any of the Asserted Patents either directly, by way of inducement, literally, willfully, and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
(Express/Implied License and/or Patent Exhaustion) Apple and/or its customers cannot be held liable for infringement because Apple’s Accused Products were made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the United States under an
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part under principles of equity, including without limitation, unclean hands, patent misuse, waiver, estoppel, disclaimer, and inequitable conduct.
cite Cite Document

No. 8 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, Move, or Otherwise Respond ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 8 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 22, 2021)
Motion to Extend Time to Answer
Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby moves the Court for an order extending the time for Apple to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partner’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (Dkt. 1).
The deadline for Apple to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is currently February 27, 2021.
Apple requests an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to Monday, March 29, 2021.
The request for an extension is not sought for purposes of delay and will not affect any other case deadlines.
Plaintiff has agreed to Apple’s request for an extension of the time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s’ Complaint to Monday, March 29, 2021.
cite Cite Document

No. 1 COMPLAINT Against Apple Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0542-14454169), filed by Gesture ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00121, No. 1 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 4, 2021)
Complaint
Dr. Pryor conceived of the inventions embodied in the Asserted Patents in the mid- to late-1990s, when he was working on a variety of different projects related to imaging and computer control.
Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
The Accused Products have one or more processors including, but not limited to, one or more System on Chips, that have been programmed to determine a gesture performed based on output from the one or more cameras.
Thus, Apple is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
cite Cite Document
1 2 >>