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

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. HP Inc.

Docket 5:16-cv-00575, California Northern District Court (Feb. 5, 2016)
Hon. James Donato, presiding
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
DemandBoth
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6470399; 6895449; 8966144
6470399
6895449
8966144
Plaintiff Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant HP Inc.
cite Cite Docket

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE Corporation et al

Docket 6:15-cv-01100, Texas Eastern District Court (Nov. 30, 2015)
Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, presiding
Patent
DivisionTyler
DemandBoth
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6470399; 6895449; 8504746; 8966144; 9189437
6470399
6895449
850474689661449189437
Plaintiff Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
Defendant ZTE Corporation
Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG

Docket 5:15-cv-02101, California Northern District Court (May 8, 2015)
Hon. James Donato, presiding
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6470399; 6895449; 8504746; 8966144
6470399
6895449
85047468966144
Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company
Defendant Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG
cite Cite Docket

No. 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT against ZTE (USA), Inc., ZTE Corporation, filed by Papst Licensing GmbH & ...

Document Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE Corporation et al, 6:15-cv-01100, No. 15 (E.D.Tex. Apr. 5, 2016)
Complaint
Upon information and belief, Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, having its principal place of business located in Richardson, Texas.
ZTE is thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s 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.
ZTE is thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s 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.
ZTE is thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s 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.
ZTE is thus liable to Papst Licensing in an amount that adequately compensates it for ZTE’s 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

No. 1 COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Hewlett-Packard Company - Magistrate Consent Notice ...

Document Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. HP Inc., 5:16-cv-00575, No. 1 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 15, 2015)
Complaint
HP is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over HP because, among other things, HP has committed, aided, abetted, contributed to, and/or participated in the commission of patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 in this judicial district and elsewhere that led to foreseeable harm and injury to Papst.
In addition, HP has sold, advertised, marketed, and distributed products in this district that practice the claimed inventions of the Patent-in-Suit.
HP has infringed, and continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ’144 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, products encompassed by those claims, including for example, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States HP tablets that use or are able to be accessed via Mass Storage Device/Mass Storage Class (“MSD”), Media Transfer Protocol (“MTP”), or Picture Transfer Protocol (“PTP”), including without limitation models Pro Slate 12, Pro Slate 8, 10 Tablet, 10 Plus, 8 G2, 7 G2, 7 Plus G2 Tablet, and all other tablet models that use or are able to be accessed via MSD, MTP, or PTP (collectively, “the ’144 Infringing Products”).
On information and belief, HP has had knowledge of the ’144 patent since it issued on February 24, 2015, as a result of monitoring Papst’s prosecution activities.
cite Cite Document

No. 1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT against Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG ( Filing fee $ 400, ...

Document Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG, 5:15-cv-02101, No. 1 (N.D.Cal. May. 8, 2015)
Complaint
States Code, § 1 et seq., with a specific remedy sought under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
An actual, substantial, and continuing justiciable controversy exists between HP and Papst that requires a declaration of rights by this Court.
Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Papst is an alien entity and therefore subject to suit in any district.
On March 31, 2008, HP filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this district against Papst seeking a declaration that HP does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 (the “’399 patent”) and 6,895,449 (the “’449 patent”).
Therefore, there exits a substantial controversy between HP and Papst, the parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
cite Cite Document

No. 32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS filed by Hewlett-Packard Company

Document Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG, 5:15-cv-02101, No. 32 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 23, 2015)
Plaintiff HP Inc., formerly Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”),1 and Defendant Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, submit the following stipulation: WHEREAS, pursuant to a September 8, 2015 Order, the Court stayed this case “pending resolution of the parties’ oppositions to the conditional transfer order filed on August 20, 2015 by
1 Once the stay is lifted, HP will file a motion correcting its name resulting from the recent split of Hewlett-Packard Company.
FENWICK & WEST LLP the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation”; WHEREAS, on December 8, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacated its order conditionally transferring the above-captioned matter to In Re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880.
Papst shall respond to the discovery propounded by HP prior to the stay of this matter by January 11, 2016.
5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.
cite Cite Document