• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 9-23 of 1,177 results

No. 677 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 612 SEALED PATENT MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of ...

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 677 (E.D.Tex. Sep. 27, 2018)
“In practice, this means that abstract recitations of royalty stacking theory, and qualitative testimony that an invention is valuable—without being anchored to a quantitative market valuation—are insufficiently reliable.” CSIRO, 809 F.3d at 1302.
Going further, the Federal Circuit held that the proper methodology is to start with rates from comparable licenses and then “account for differences in the technologies and economic circumstances of the contracting parties.” Id. at 1303 (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could have properly determined that such “analysis” is too truncated to form a good-faith belief, especially since LG’s invalidity defenses presented at trial primarily relied on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
As stated in Commil, to permit otherwise would encourage every accused infringer to put forth a theory of invalidity, no matter how weak, in order to preclude the possibility of enhanced damages.
This argument relies on the same logic reflected in a young child’s typical protestation raised in the form of “But Mama, Johnny didn’t do it either.” The Court finds that other implementers wrongful acts do not excuse LG’s behavior, and are not a reason to overturn a proper verdict in this regard.
cite Cite Document

No. 676 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION - denying in its entirety

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 676 (E.D.Tex. Sep. 25, 2018)
Entry of judgment as a matter of law is therefore only appropriate when “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did.” Guile v. United States, 422 F.3d 221, 225 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (“A district court must deny a motion for judgment as a matter of law unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant’s favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.”) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).1 “In evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a court must ‘draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict.’” Metaswitch Networks Ltd. v. Genband US LLC, No. 2:14-CV-00744-JRG, 2017 WL 3704760, at *2 (E.D.
“The test for the sufficiency of the written description ‘is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” Vasudevan Software, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351).
Core responds that it is not required to show that non-operable embodiments are enabled, and that LG’s expert, Mr. Lanning, agreed that “one of ordinary skill would know, without undue experimentation, ‘that time cannot move backwards,’ that ‘time cannot stand still,’ and that using large integers ‘would not make any sense either’ as ‘the cell phone would never transmit.’” (Dkt. No. 624 at 1 (citing 9/15/16 Morning Session, Dkt. No. 43 at 8:6–24).)
LG presented no evidence at trial that undue experimentation would be needed to determine that negative, zero, and very large integer values would render the embodiment inoperable.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the method of distinguishing between different transmission modes taught in Brolin with the IS-54 frame stealing solution to address the common problem of transmitting different types of data over the same line.” (Id. at 16–17.)
cite Cite Document

No. 674 ORDER granting 673 Motion to Substitute Party

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 674 (E.D.Tex. Sep. 6, 2018)
Motion to Substitute PartyGranted
Before the Court is Defendants Unopposed Motion to Substitute Named Defendants and Amend Caption.
Having considered said motion and finding good cause exists, the motion is GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is substituted as the defendant in this action in place of LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., and the caption is amended to read: Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l., Plaintiff, vs. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendants.
cite Cite Document

No. 669 REDACTED ORDER re 666 Sealed Order

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 669 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 31, 2018)
Further, and to the extent that LG raised indirect infringement in its written submissions under Rule 50(a), judgment as a matter of law is only appropriate where “a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial.” Fed. R. Civ.
c. The “Checking” Claim Element LG argues that “Core failed to present any evidence that the LG phones satisfy the ‘check to determine whether it is transmitting data packets in a current air interface transmission time interval’ limitation.” (Dkt. No. 617 at 12.)
LG asserts that not only did Dr. Jackson provide no evidence that “the baseband processor in LG mobile phones implementing the standards performs [the] check,” but that he “admitted that he could not identify anything in the standards that satisfies the claimed step.” (Id.) Core responds that Dr. Jackson “presented detailed testimony based on both source code and documents showing that LG’s devices use a function called which checks to determine ‘whether the apparatus is transmitting data packets in a current air interface transmission time interval,’ per step [e].” (Dkt. No. 623 at 16.)
The Court notes that Dr. Jackson makes several statements from which a jury could find that the accused devices meet the “check to determine whether the apparatus is transmitting data packets in a current air interface transmission time interval” claim element.
Core responds that “[d]uring the course of the trial, both parties’ experts as to the ’536 patent made it clear that their dispute centered around whether LG’s accused devices ‘detect a frame which contains a message’ by simply recognizing a RATSCCH ID (LG’s ‘one-step’ theory) or by also performing the additional step of a CRC check.” (Dkt. No. 623 at 19.)
cite Cite Document

No. 668 ORDER granting 667 Joint MOTION to Seal PORTIONS OF THE JULY 19, 2018 ORDER [DKT666]

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 668 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 30, 2018)
Motion to SealGranted
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Seal Portions of the July 19, 2018 Order found at Dkt. No. 666 (Dkt. No. 667) (“the Motion”).
Having considered the parties’ submission and proposed redactions, and finding good cause exists, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the clerk of court to seal the portions of the Order identified below: Page Identifier Last paragraph.
Source code that follows “function called .
cite Cite Document

No. 665 ORDER denying as moot 622 Motion to Seal

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 665 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 19, 2018)
Motion to Seal
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal, filed January 4, 2017 (Dkt. No. 622).
In such Motion, the Plaintiff requested that its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Noninfringement (Dkt. No. 623) be filed under seal.
The Motion having been filed under seal the same day, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion as
cite Cite Document

No. 663 MANDATE of USCA FEDERAL CIRCUIT filed by LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., ...

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 663 (E.D.Tex. May. 10, 2018)
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:14-cv-00911-JRG- RSP, 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-SP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered January 25, 2018, and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
Costs in the amount of $500.00 were determined and taxed against the appellant.
cite Cite Document

No. 662 ORDER granting 660 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 662 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 15, 2018)
Motion to Withdraw as CounselGranted
Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel (Dkt. No. 660) (the “Motion”).
Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
It is therefore ORDERED that Kevin Sean Kudlac is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. in this matter.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate any further ECF notices to Kevin Sean Kudlac in this action.
cite Cite Document

No. 658 USCA OPINION and JUDGMENT filed affirming the judgment or decision as to 595 Notice of Appeal ...

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 658 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 25, 2018)
Motion for Judgment
A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a timely filed objection.
If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to the Treasurer of the United States.
Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives notice to remove them.
(The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
cc: Marc Aaron Fenster Daniel Hay Adam S. Hoffman Peter H. Kang Reza Mirzaie Ryan C. Morris Kayvan B. Noroozi Carter Glasgow Phillips James Suh Benjamin T. Wang Anna Mayergoyz Weinberg 16-2684, 17-1922: Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics, Inc. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case Nos. 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP & 2:14-cv-00912-
cite Cite Document

No. 647 JUDGMENT as to Liability

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 647 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 14, 2017)
Motion for Judgment
After the conclusion of the trial, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and in the Alternative for a New Trial (Dkt. No. 453) regarding the amount of damages to be awarded.
In doing so, the Court held that Defendants are entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the jury’s verdict and the entirety of the record available to the Court, the Court hereby ORDERS and ENTERS JUDGMENT as follows: 1.
Plaintiff Core Wireless is the prevailing party, and as the prevailing party, Core Wireless shall recover its costs from LG.
In light of the necessity of holding a new trial on the issue of damages, the Clerk is directed to keep this case open.
cite Cite Document

No. 646 ORDER denied 406 Motion to Deem Withdrawal

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 646 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 14, 2017)
Motion to WithdrawDenied
LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG
Before the Court is the Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s Withdrawal of U.S. Patent No.
8,498,671 a Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 406) filed by Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).
Having considered the Parties’ briefing and the relevant authorities, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants’ Motion should be and hereby is DENIED.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims pertaining to U.S. Patent No. 8,498,671 are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
cite Cite Document

No. 638 ORDER granting 545 Motion to Withdraw 529 Motion for Post-Verdict Relief

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 638 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2017)
Motion to WithdrawGranted
LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION the Unopposed Motion of Plaintiff Core Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l to Withdraw Without Prejudice Core Wireless’s Motion for Post-Verdict Relief, Final Judgment, and Severance (Dkt. 529).
Having considered the motion it is hereby
Accordingly, Core Wireless’s Motion for Post-Verdict Relief, Final Judgment, and Severance is hereby WITHDRAWN.
cite Cite Document

No. 637 ORDER granting 636 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 637 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2017)
Motion to Extend Time to File ResponseGranted
Core Wireless Licensing, S.a.r.l., Plaintiff,
LG Electronics, Inc. & LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG (Lead Case) Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-912-JRG (Consolidated)
The Court, having considered the Unopposed Motion To Amend Briefing Schedule For The Parties’ Sur-Replies To Their Respective Post-Trial Motions In The -912 Case, filed by Core Wireless, hereby ORDERS THAT the briefing schedules set forth in Docket 604 and 605 are amended as follows: Event in the -912 case Parties to file their sur-replies to the respective post-trial motions Current Deadline Wednesday February 8, 2017 Amended Deadline Monday February 13, 2017
cite Cite Document

No. 609 ORDER re 608 Agreed MOTION for Entry of Corrected Admitted -912 Trial Exhibit Lists

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 609 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 23, 2016)
Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed Motion for Entry of Corrected Admitted -912 Trial Exhibit Lists.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall submit to the courtroom deputy a corrected admitted trial exhibit list, which no longer designates PTX-856, PTX-1114, PTX-1160, PTX-1663 and PTX-1664 as being entered into evidence at trial;
Counsel for Defendants shall submit to the courtroom deputy a corrected admitted trial exhibit list, which accurately designates LGX567, LGX569, LGX570 and LGX571 as being entered into evidence at trial; and
Counsel for the parties shall subsequently submit to the courtroom deputy two CDs each — one containing sealed admitted trial exhibits and the other containing public admitted trial exhibits.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of November, 2016.
cite Cite Document

No. 604 ORDER granting 601 Motion to Set Briefing Schedule

Document Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2:14-cv-00911, No. 604 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 17, 2016)
Core Wireless Licensing, S.a.r.l., Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG (Lead Case) Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-912-JRG (Consolidated)
The Court, having considered the parties’ competing proposals for a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s proposed post-trial motions in the -912 case, hereby ORDERS THAT: ____ [Alternative proposed by Defendants].
Within 14 days after the last order resolving Defendants’ post-trial motions, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly file a proposed briefing schedule for any post-trial motions proposed by Plaintiff.
The briefing schedule and page limits for Plaintiff’s proposed post-trial motions in the -912 case shall be as follows: Deadline Wednesday November 30, 2016 Event in the -912 case Plaintiff to file all of its post-trial motions (up to 15 pages each) Deadline Wednesday January 4, 2017 Wednesday January 25, 2017 Wednesday February 8, 2017 Event in the -912 case Defendants to file their oppositions to Plaintiff’s post-trial motions (up to 15 pages each) Plaintiff to file its replies in support of its post-trial motions (up to 5 pages each) Defendants to file their sur-replies to Plaintiff’s post-trial motions (up to 5 pages each)
cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... >>