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

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

No. 148

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 148 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2024)

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

No. 50

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 50 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2022)

cite Cite Document

No. 17

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 17 (D.N.J. Jun. 16, 2021)

cite Cite Document

No. 1

Document GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. ET AL., 2:21-cv-19234, No. 1 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2021)

cite Cite Document

1009 Exhibit: In re Apple Inc

Document IPR2022-00359, No. 1009-8 Exhibit - In re Apple Inc (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 >>