• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 24-38 of 679 results

No. 135 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 6/16/2016: The Court, in its discretion, exercises ...

Document USA Satellite & Cable, Inc. v. Casco Bay Holdings, LLC, 1:15-cv-06331, No. 135 (N.D.Ill. Jun. 16, 2016)
Mac Naughton further averred that – at the time of his motion to withdraw – the full amount of the unpaid balance was due and owing pursuant to the terms of the August 2009 Security Agreement.
In the New Jersey Action, Mac Naughton seeks to collect the attorney’s fees and expenses due and owing by USA Satellite and Harmelech in the RMG action.1 (06 C 3578, R.
On September 24, 2015, Casco Bay and Mac Naughton voluntarily dismissed case number 14 C 10134, and then filed the present counter-claims, cross-claims, and third-party claims against USA Satellite, Harmelech, and others.
In the interim, on November 8, 2014, Casco Bay, as intervenor, sent a letter to USA Satellite and its customers claiming a security interest in the Illinois state court settlement amounts.
In any event, according to Casco Bay, on August 8, 2014, it filed a UCC-1 financial statement with the Illinois Secretary of State perfecting its alleged security interest in the collateral of certain property owned by USA Satellite.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 134 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 6/14/2016: The Court grants Third-Party Defendant ...

Document USA Satellite & Cable, Inc. v. Casco Bay Holdings, LLC, 1:15-cv-06331, No. 134 (N.D.Ill. Jun. 14, 2016)
Nonetheless, the Court cautions Mac Naughton and Casco Bay that any attempt to bring another lawsuit against Leydig based on these same allegations may be considered sanctionable conduct.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 133 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 6/8/2016: The Court grants Third-Party Defendant ...

Document USA Satellite & Cable, Inc. v. Casco Bay Holdings, LLC, 1:15-cv-06331, No. 133 (N.D.Ill. Jun. 8, 2016)
On July 20, 2015, Defendants Casco Bay and W. James Mac Naughton (“Mac Naughton”) removed three related lawsuits from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(a), and 1446.
In the interim, on November 8, 2014, Casco Bay sent a letter to USA Satellite and its customers claiming a security interest in the settlement amounts via an assignment.
According to Casco Bay, on August 8, 2014, it filed a UCC-1 financial statement with the Illinois Secretary of State perfecting its security interest in the collateral of certain property owned by USA Satellite.
Put differently, a claim under Rule 14(a), also known as impleader, “must involve an attempt to pass on to the third party all or part of the liability asserted against the defendant.” Ashley v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., No. 12 C 8309, 2015 WL 4550126, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2015).
“[I]mpleader is available only against persons who are or may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiff’s claim; it cannot be used as a way of combining all controversies having a common relationship in one action.” 6 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1442 (3d ed.).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

1st Media LLC v. doPi Karaoke, Inc. et al

Docket 2:07-cv-01589, Nevada District Court (Nov. 29, 2007)
James C. Mahan, presiding, Nancy J. Koppe
Patent
DivisionLas Vegas
DemandBoth
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff 1st Media LLC
Defendant do Pi Karaoke, Inc.
Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

epicRealm Licensing, LP. v. Various, Inc.

Docket 5:07-cv-00135, Texas Eastern District Court (Jan. 25, 2007)
Judge David Folsom, presiding, Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven
Patent
DivisionTexarkana
DemandBoth
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff epicRealm Licensing, LP.
Plaintiff Parallel Networks LLC
Consol Plaintiff epicRealm Licensing, LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Oracle Corporation et al v. Parallel Networks LLC

Docket 1:06-cv-00414, Delaware District Court (June 30, 2006)
Judge Sue L. Robinson, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsCLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT
DemandDefendant
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Oracle Corporation
Plaintiff Oracle America Inc.
Defendant Epicrealm Licensing LP
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 319 ORDER Granting 318 Proposed Order Submission filed by Sony Computer Entertainment America, ...

Document 1st Media LLC v. doPi Karaoke, Inc. et al, 2:07-cv-01589, No. 319 (D.Nev. Jul. 5, 2013)
CORPORATION, VIACOM INC. and SONY
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“SCEA”) has moved to stay this action pending ex parte reexamination of the patent—in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,464,946 (“the '946 Patent”).
The Court conducted a hearing regarding the motion on June 27, 2013.
Upon review of the parties’ submissions, and after considering the parties’ arguments, the Court
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 298 ORDER Granting 295 Motion to Reopen Case and to Hold a Status and Scheduling Conference

Document 1st Media LLC v. doPi Karaoke, Inc. et al, 2:07-cv-01589, No. 298 (D.Nev. Mar. 27, 2013)
Presently before the court is plaintiff 1st Media LLC’s motion to reopen the case and hold a status and scheduling conference.
On February 27, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen case and to hold a status and scheduling conference.
On March 8, 2013, defendants SCEA, Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. and Viacom, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge United States, no. 12-1086.
Defendant SCEA, however, requests a stay of these proceedings and that a conference be set approximately 90 days out or once a decision is rendered in the Supreme Court regarding the pending certiorari petition.
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Franklin Covey Co. et al

Docket 5:07-cv-00126, Texas Eastern District Court (Aug. 5, 2005)
Judge David Folsom, presiding
Patent
12/14/2005
12/14/2005 88 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Caroline Craven : Status Conference held on 12/14/2005. (Court Reporter none.) (lf, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc. et al

Docket 5:07-cv-00125, Texas Eastern District Court (May 2, 2005)
Judge David Folsom, presiding, Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven
Patent
12/14/2005
12/14/2005 74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Caroline Craven : Status Conference held on 12/14/2005. (Court Reporter none.) (lf, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
05/23/2005
05/23/2005 14 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Autoflex Leasing, Inc. identifying None as Corporate Parent. (Bezney, Paul) (Entered: 05/23/2005)...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Company Ltd v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. e...

Docket 3:04-cv-04675, California Northern District Court (Nov. 3, 2004)
Hon. Marilyn H. Patel, presiding
Patent
DivisionSan Francisco
FlagsADRMOP, AO279, CLOSED, E-Filing, PRVADR
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Company Ltd
Defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp.
Defendant International Display Technology Co., Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 468 MEMORANDUM ORDER re: pretrial issues

Document Oracle Corporation et al v. Parallel Networks LLC, 1:06-cv-00414, No. 468 (D.Del. May. 6, 2011)
At Wilmington this 6th day of May 2011, having reviewed the issues identified in the parties’ joint pretrial order (D.I.
399 at 2-3) (emphasis added) In its concurrent memorandum opinion, the court noted that its construction precluded Parallel Networks from arguing that prior art containing a configuration file, which is not
The court also granted in part and denied in part Parallel Network's motion for summary judgment of no anticipation — the only question of validity brought by Parallel Networks on summary judgment.
Parallel Networks did not contest the court’s 2Oracle indicated at the pretrial conference that it will not seek a jury determination that the Oracle 1.0 User’s Guide is, in and of itself, anticipatory.
rejection of its doctrine of equivalents theory on appeal and the Federal Circuit deemed the issue waived in 2009.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 462 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Oracle Corporation et al v. Parallel Networks LLC, 1:06-cv-00414, No. 462 (D.Del. Apr. 29, 2011)
Parallel and Safelite settled the Texas litigation and filed a stipulation of dismissal with the court on June 26, Oracle Corporation is a software manufacturer incorporated and organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in Redwood Shores, California.
(Id.) The Federal Circuit vacated this court’s ruling of noninfringement, holding that the accused products could be found to infringe, based on this court’s construction and a hardware scenario (freeing processor cycles) that had not been considered.
273, ex. 5 at ¶ 36) Parallel cites Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2000), for the proposition that Finkel’s conclusion is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Oracle’s infringement by equivalents.
In addition, the court notes that, even if Finkel’s supplemental report had been timely filed, his doctrine of equivalents analysis is merely a restatement of Parallel’s literal infringement arguments in the “function-way-result” pattern and, thus, not sufficiently particularized to create a genuine issue of material fact.
A reasonable jury could find that The court notes that broader construction of claims, while tending to encompass more accused products, also increases the range of prior art which may be used to prove invalidity.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 459 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Oracle Corporation et al v. Parallel Networks LLC, 1:06-cv-00414, No. 459 (D.Del. Apr. 25, 2011)
Parallel and Safelite settled the Texas litigation and filed a stipulation of dismissal with the court on June 26, 20racle Corporation is a software manufacturer incorporated and organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in Redwood Shores, California.'
To prove infringement by the doctrine of equivalents, a patentee must provide "particularized testimony and linking argument" as to the "insubstantiality of the differences" between the claimed invention and the accused product, or with respect to the function/way/result test.
273, ex. 5 at 'fl36) Parallel cites Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324,1336 (Fed. Cir. 2000), for the proposition that Finkel's conclusion is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Oracle's infringement by equivalents.
In addition, the court notes that, even if Finkel's supplemental report had been timely filed, his doctrine of equivalents analysiS is merely a restatement of Parallel's literal infringement arguments in the "function-way-result" pattern and, thus, not sufficiently particularized to create a genuine issue of material fact.
A reasonable jury could find that 15The court notes that broader construction of claims, while tending to encompass more accused products, also increases the range of prior art which may be used to prove invalidity.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 444 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 438 Motion for reargument; denying 441 Motion for leave to file a ...

Document Oracle Corporation et al v. Parallel Networks LLC, 1:06-cv-00414, No. 444 (D.Del. Oct. 29, 2010)
The purpose of a motion for reargument or reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
Motions for reargument may not be used “to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided.” Brambles USA, Inc., v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp.
No. 10-195, 2010 WL 3705263, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 23, 2010) (holding that a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify or stay its own injunction in a case even after the filing of a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit).
The court was aware that plaintiffs had waited until after the case was remanded from the Federal Circuit before filing their motion, and considered that fact in its timing factor analysis.
Plaintiffs could have filed the motion to stay during the Federal Circuit's review of the case and, if properly raised, any jurisdictional issues could have been vetted during briefing.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... >>