• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
70 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. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL.

Docket 2:21-cv-19234, New Jersey District Court (Oct. 22, 2021)
Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer
Patent
DivisionNewark
FlagsSCHEDO, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7804530; 7933431; 8194924; 8553079; 8878949
7804530
7933431
819492485530798878949
Plaintiff GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC
Defendant LG ELECTRONIC INC.
Defendant LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
...
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

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2022-00091, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 5, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
Petitioner Google
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. 148 OPINION and ORDER denying 100 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 148 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2024)
Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsDenied
LG offers this summary of its argument, quoted here in its entirety, at step one: Claim 4 is not “inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus,” and the patent itself acknowledges that taking photographs in response to observable cues-such as a subject posing-has long been practiced in the human mind.
• FIG. 3 illustrates a self timer like mode, or when specific dates or other circumstances exist, including a system embodiment for taking pictures in shopping malls or other locales and providing instant print or other hardcopy capability (e.g. on a tee shirt).
Case 2:21-cv-19234-SRC-MAH Document 148 Filed 12/23/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 3060 These specification statements support the inference that an important aspect of the functioning of the invention is the capacity to enable photography subjects themselves to issue gestural commands to a device in order to have a photograph taken.
LG has failed to persuade that the method that can be inferred from claim 4 (which includes gestural image capture commands) is nothing more than the long prevalent fundamental practice of photography in response to observable cues.
Pursuant to Astellas and Berkheimer, this specification statement in a valid patent is sufficient to raise a factual dispute over whether Case 2:21-cv-19234-SRC-MAH Document 148 Filed 12/23/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 3069 the combination of elements in claim 4 is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field.
cite Cite Document

No. 144 OPINION & ORDER denying 127 Plaintiff's Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order; Affirming the ...

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 144 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2024)
This Court will not dissect the definition of the word “original” because the record shows – and, indeed, Gesture’s appeal brief states this – that the first set of infringement contentions was filed by Gesture while this case was proceeding in the Western District of Texas in July of 2021.
The first argument seems to rely on the idea that something about the transfer itself to the District of New Jersey nullified or wiped clean the history of the case in Texas, although Gesture cites no law in support.
There is also a suggestion that, by submitting a proposed joint scheduling order, the parties stipulated to an erasure of the preceding case history; if this is indeed what Gesture has in mind, again there are no law or facts cited in support.1
Lastly, there is Gesture’s argument based on a district court decision in California, Life Techs., which it presented to the Magistrate Judge in the brief in support of its original motion to amend.
Gesture has submitted no facts – new or otherwise – to explain why or how that Case 2:21-cv-19234-SRC-MAH Document 144 Filed 11/13/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 3051 position changed, or to justify a remarkably blatant effort to resurrect an infringement claim that it had previously indicated had been abandoned.
cite Cite Document

No. 124

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 124 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2024)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 >>