Search court records on patent:(6910069) - party Gino Cheng, page 3

All Courts
Federal Courts
Bankruptcies
PTAB
ITC

Filters

Display dockets
Display documents
- Decisions and Orders
- Exhibits
- Briefs and Motions
- Pleadings
- x Reset Selection

Like full text docket searches?

Get docket alerts, perform legal research, get updates of major decisions and orders, use our advanced analytics, and more. Request a Demo or create your account.

Click for

AnalyticsSearch

Motions and Pleadings

No motions found.

Displaying 24-38 of 233 results

sorted by

No. 23 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Gino Cheng - filed by Activision Blizzard Inc

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 23 (D.Del. Sep. 15, 2015)

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 and the attached certification, counsel moves the admission pro hac vice of Gino Cheng of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071to represent defendant Electronic Arts Inc. in this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel’s motion for admission pro hac vice of Gino Cheng is granted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, I certify that I am eligible for admission to this Court, am admitted, practicing and in good standing as a member of the Bar of the State of California and pursuant to Local Rule 83.6 submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court for any alleged misconduct which occurs in the preparation or course of this action.

I also certify that I am generally familiar with this Court’s Local Rules.

In accordance with Standing Order for District Court Fund effective 3/25:’ 14, I further certify that the annual fee of $25.00 has been paid E to the Clerk of Court, or, if not paid previously, the fee payment will be submitted [:1 to the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of this motion.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Allen M. -SM- Terrell, JR.
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 126 REDACTED VERSION of 119 Reply Brief, by Activision Blizzard Inc., 2K Sports Inc., Rockstar ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 126 (D.Del. Apr. 11, 2016)

After all, “[w]hether a transfer of a particular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license” depends “upon the legal effect of its provisions,” not a litigation- inspired declaration.

Because the court “must examine the licensing agreement to determine whether the parties intended to effect a transfer,” a “patentee’s later second thoughts are irrelevant.” Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 52 F.3d 1026, 1032 Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Walker Digital, 950 F. Supp.

While AB criticizes Defendants for not filing similar affidavits, extrin- sic evidence is not necessary to interpret a contract’s plain language, and in any event, it is AB that bears the burden of establishing its standing.

But standing “depends entirely on the putative plaintiff’s proprietary interest in the patent, not on any contractual arrangements among the parties about who may sue.” Prima Tek II v. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir.

In Pfizer, Inc. v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing where the transferor retained, inter alia, the right to market patented products commercially in the United States, 812 F. Supp.

Cite Document

Analyze