• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 54-68 of 23,460 results

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al

Docket CO/1:17-cv-02097, Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (Aug. 31, 2017)
Judge R. Brooke Jackson, presiding
FlagsMDL_DENIED
Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC
Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
Defendant Sling TV L.L.C.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al

Docket 1:17-cv-02097, Colorado District Court (Aug. 31, 2017)
Judge R. Brooke Jackson, presiding
Patent
DivisionDenver
FlagsAPPEAL, FEDAPP, JD1, LEAD, MJ CIV PP, TERMED
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent8867610; 8934535, 8867610, 8934535
Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC
Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
Defendant Sling TV L.L.C.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 519 Before the Court is Plaintiff Provisur Technologies, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding ...

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 519 (W.D.Mo. Sep. 18, 2024)
Provisur further alleges that Weber wrongfully obtained Weber’s patents-at-issue by intentionally withholding prior art references from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
As Weber admits, they continued to include their § 112 arguments in several rounds of invalidity contentions under the Patent Local Rules.
The Court granted Rule 50 judgment against Weber on their § 112 invalidity defense on the last day of testimony; this decision stands today.
When, as here, “the adversarial litigation of the issue has proceeded as far as it did ... preclusion serves the interests in ‘conserving judicial resources’ and ‘avoiding oppression or harassment of the adverse party.’” VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 792 Fed. Appx.
796, 804 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also 18A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4419 (3d ed) (recognizing this element may be lacking if the non-moving party merely made a “feeble effort to litigate”).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 522 Before the Court is Defendant Provisur Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 522 (W.D.Mo. Sep. 18, 2024)
In its decision to grant the IPR, the PTAB stated that Provisur’s petition “presents compelling evidence that at least independent claim[] 1 ... of the ‘487 patent [is] unpatentable[.
“In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a district court is required to distinguish between a facial attack and a factual attack.” Roberts v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 20-CV-00076, 2020 WL 7086103, at *2 (W.D.
Provisur argues that “Weber’s voluntary and unconditional cancellation of claim 16 in the parallel IPR proceeding,” renders Weber’s infringement counterclaim moot and the Court must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 (Doc. #470, p.
Weber argues “[t]he central dispute is whether filing proposed amendments in a pending IPR proceeding finally cancels patent claims.
The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB did not err in addressing claim 1’s validity due to the pending nature of the reexamination proceeding and lack of statutory disclaimer by the patent owner.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 107 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Document RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. v. Sony Group Corporation et al, 2:22-cv-00424, No. 107 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 28, 2024)
Motion for Claim Construction
Nonetheless, it fails to assert any basis for disclaimer or lexicography.
The Court recognizes that agreement and will hold the parties to it, but nonetheless opts to keep its tentative construction.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 609

Document Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., 2:22-cv-00322, No. 609 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 28, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 106

Document RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. v. Sony Group Corporation et al, 2:22-cv-00424, No. 106 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 22, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 102

Document RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. v. Sony Group Corporation et al, 2:22-cv-00424, No. 102 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 12, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Techno View IP, Inc. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, et al

Docket 8:17-cv-01268, California Central District Court (July 23, 2017)
Judge Cormac J. Carney, presiding, Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi
Patent

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 601

Document Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., 2:22-cv-00322, No. 601 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 9, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 593

Document Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., 2:22-cv-00322, No. 593 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 5, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 95

Document RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. v. Sony Group Corporation et al, 2:22-cv-00424, No. 95 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 26, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 580

Document Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., 2:22-cv-00322, No. 580 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 25, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 579

Document Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., 2:22-cv-00322, No. 579 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 24, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 84

Document RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. v. Sony Group Corporation et al, 2:22-cv-00424, No. 84 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 9, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... >>