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

Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al

Docket 1:16-cv-03852, New York Southern District Court (May 23, 2016)
Judge J. Paul Oetken, presiding
Patent
DivisionFoley Square
FlagsSTAYED, ECF, PATENT-PILOT
Cause35:0001 Establishment of PTO
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6418556; 6725281; 7895218; 7996864; 8006263; 8046801; 8122034; 8433696; 8566871; 8578413; 8621512; 8713595; 8755666; 8768147; 9172987
64185566725281789521879968648006263804680181220348433696856687185784138621512871359587556668768147
9172987
Plaintiff Comcast Corporation
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
...
cite Cite Docket

No. 101 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 101 (S.D.N.Y. May. 15, 2017)
Motion for Reconsideration
On June 1, 2016, Comcast1 filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Rovi2 from continuing to prosecute their patent infringement claims against Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas and before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).
Legal Standard “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 52 F. Supp.
“To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (quoting Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D.
Comcast argues that these statements demonstrate that, despite Rovi’s prior assurances to this Court, Rovi is indeed seeking relief as to alleged unfair acts that occurred before the expiration of the Patent Agreement.
Comcast has not shown that Rovi is seeking relief in the ITC for any unfair act consisting of pre-expiration activity, including any stockpiling or testing of the allegedly infringing products.
cite Cite Document

No. 84

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 84 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 75

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 75 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 54

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 54 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 14, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 19

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 19 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 18

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 18 (S.D.N.Y. May. 27, 2016)

cite Cite Document

No. 57

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 57 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 22, 2016)

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