• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
369 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

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Docket 2:21-cv-00041, Texas Eastern District Court (Feb. 4, 2021)
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, presiding
Patent
DivisionMarshall
FlagsCLOSED, CONSOL, JRG1, JURY, PATENT/TRADEMARK
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7933431
819492485530798878949
Mediator David Folsom
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al

Docket 2:21-cv-00040, Texas Eastern District Court (Feb. 4, 2021)
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, presiding, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
Patent
DivisionMarshall
FlagsCASREF, CLOSED, JRG1, JURY, LEAD, PATENT/TRADEMARK, PROTECTIVE-ORDER
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7933431
819492485530798878949
Mediator David Folsom
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Defendant Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
...
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. 242

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 242 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 24, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 240

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 240 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 16, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 236

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 236 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 11, 2022)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>