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

No. 404 FINAL JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees in favor of Ubisoft Entertainment SA, Ubisoft Inc. against ...

Document Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA, 1:13-cv-00335, No. 404 (D.Del. Sep. 24, 2021)
Motion for Judgment
400), the Court ORDERED Plaintiff Princeton Digital Image Corporation's ("Plaintiff') to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Defendants Ubisoft Entertainment SA and Ubisoft, Inc. ( collectively, "Ubisoft") in litigating this case in this Court between December 13, 2017 and October 25, 2019.
Ubisoft was to provide Plaintiff all reasonable and necessary documentation to support the amount of fees incurred between December 13, 2017 and October 25 , 2019.
On September 10, 2021 , Ubisoft provided Plaintiff the documentation supporting the fees in the amount of $1,079,891.43.
On September 17, 2021 , Plaintiff responded to the Court's Order stating that it would not file an opposition to the fees requested by Ubisoft without prejudice to the filing of an appeal from the underlying decision of the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall submit payment to Defendants of$1,079,891.43.
cite Cite Document

No. 400 MEMORANDUM ORDER re 392 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Ubisoft Entertainment ...

Document Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA, 1:13-cv-00335, No. 400 (D.Del. Sep. 3, 2021)
Motion for Attorney FeesPartial
72 710) Early in the suit, Ubisoft expressed concern to PDIC that its infringement theory mistakenly relied on the notionthat “the backgroundlighting and effects [in the accused games] are produced or controlled by a musicfile.” (D.I.
In his June 16, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), he noted: [I]t is clear that before the PTAB, PDIC arguedthat the claim limitation ... required that control information must correspond not to time, position, or locations in a sound recording, but simply to the audio signal itself.
45-1 at 27-29, 31-33) In other words, PDIC knew or should have known that, in the accused games, “once the timer starts, the graphics are displayed irrespective of the audio content” — functionality that this Court had clearly explainedin its claim construction order was disclaimed.
Rather, the Court finds that PDIC’s continued pursuit of its infringement theory despite its substantive weakness post-claim construction, when considered as part of the totality of the circumstances, renders the entire case exceptional.
398 at 9) (“In addition to its reasonable attorneys’ fees, Ubisoft also should be awarded the expensesit was forced to incur in order to defend against PDIC’s meritless infringement claim.”) Assuming, arguendo, that Section 285 permits the recovery of such expenditures,’ the Court is not persuadedit is appropriate under the totality of the circumstances presented here.
cite Cite Document

No. 385

Document Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA, 1:13-cv-00335, No. 385 (D.Del. Nov. 9, 2020)

cite Cite Document

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 5,513,129

Docket IPR2015-00271, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 17, 2014)

cite Cite Docket

Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA

Docket 1:13-cv-00335, Delaware District Court (Feb. 28, 2013)
Judge Leonard P. Stark, presiding, Judge Christopher J. Burke
Patent

cite Cite Docket

No. 398

Document Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA, 1:13-cv-00335, No. 398 (D.Del. Apr. 23, 2021)

cite Cite Document

No. 382

Document Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA, 1:13-cv-00335, No. 382 (D.Del. Oct. 28, 2019)

cite Cite Document

No. 392

Document Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA, 1:13-cv-00335, No. 392 (D.Del. Feb. 26, 2021)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 >>