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

Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Docket 1:22-cv-03535, Illinois Northern District Court (July 7, 2022)
Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins, presiding
Patent
DivisionChicago
FlagsAO279, PROTO, TERMED, WEISMAN
Cause15:1126 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
... 7933431 ...
500894650889285088938522798652490535297061536559753767965388059545404354597935491507552826355349215572251558127655944695616078562411757816475781650580867258287705845006585332758544915864334587817459044845926168593661059401265956417598235259998406008000600880060441836052132609845861080336148100616089962048526252598630176363017836342917634692963596476363160637347264424656453180650870965296176545670659781766634916750848676603667753616788336691197270159507084859709889174017837489863756447677562977804530
7933431
81890538194924855307986541988878949
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners LLC
Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC
cite Cite Docket

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Vidal

Docket 1:22-cv-00622, Virginia Eastern District Court (May 27, 2022)
District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr, presiding, Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson
Patent
DivisionAlexandria
FlagsPATENT
Cause05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7933431
819492485530798878949
Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Defendant Katherine K. Vidal
cite Cite Docket

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. 157 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 9/24/2024

Document Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:22-cv-03535, No. 157 (N.D.Ill. Sep. 24, 2024)
Citations to docket filings generally refer to the electronic pagination provided by CM/ECF, which may not be consistent with page numbers in the underlying documents.
A genuine issue of material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Summary judgment “is the ‘put up or shut up’ moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events.” Wade v. Ramos, 26 F.4th 440, 446 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Schacht v. Wis. Dept’ of Corr., 175 F.3d 497, 504 (7th Cir. 1999)).
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 810 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“It is highly disfavored to construe terms in a way that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.”) Therefore, for GTP to overcome Motorola’s non-infringement argument, it must put forth sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the Module of the Accused Devices contains the components of a digital camera, and another, separate sensor that is capable of detecting gestures.
Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., 596 F.3d 1355, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“an expert’s naked conclusion is insufficient to survive summary judgment”); USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2023 WL 5606977, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“conclusory expert opinion[s] do[] not present a genuine factual dispute to prevent summary judgment.”) Based on this record, no reasonable jury could conclude the Accused Devices contain a sensor that is separate from the digital camera.
cite Cite Document

No. 154 REPLY by Motorola Mobility LLC to MOTION by Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC for summary judgment ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:22-cv-03535, No. 154 (N.D.Ill. Jul. 10, 2024)
Motion for Summary Judgment
While it is true that the CMOS electro-optical sensing array and the lens are separate components, this is irrelevant because they are both part of the digital cameras that GTP identifies in its Final Infringement Contentions.
Moreover, GTP’s citation to Motorola’s motion is to the “Legal Standard” section, which notes the universally-accepted proposition that under Alice Step 2, the addition of generic hardware cannot rescue an otherwise abstract idea from patent ineligibility.
The Thales court explained that the ’159 patent disclosed methods that “directly measure the gravitational field in the platform frame,” rather than using the flawed prior art approach of “measuring inertial changes with respect to the earth.” Id. at 1345.
The court further explained that the ’159 patent disclosed an “unconventional … combination of sensor placement” that had multiple advantages over the prior art, including “increas[ing] the accuracy with which inertial sensors measure the tracked object,” “requir[ing] fewer measured inputs (and fewer points of potential error),” the ability to “operate independently, without requiring other hardware on the moving platform,” and simpler installation since “the whole system is installed on the inside of the moving platform.” Id. at 1345, 1348.
In other words, other than the generic disclosure of “sensors,” there is nothing about Thales that is applicable to the instant case.5 Finally, GTP devotes over two pages to the Texas PNC case to rebut the Federal Circuit’s Yu decision.
cite Cite Document

No. 137 MOTION by Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC for summary judgment Defendant Motorola Mobility ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:22-cv-03535, No. 137 (N.D.Ill. May. 22, 2024)
Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”), by its attorneys, hereby moves for an Order granting summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the “’949 patent”).
In support hereof, Motorola relies upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and exhibits submitted herewith.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:
granting summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 4 of the ’949 patent; and
granting summary judgment of invalidity of claim 4 of the ’949 patent under 35
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>