• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 39-53 of 707 results

No. 166 ORDER REGARDING EXHIBITS

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 166 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 22, 2021)
Due to the voluminous exhibits expected to be tendered during the trial of this case, the Court ORDERS the following:
In addition, exhibits shall be placed in properly marked letter size manilla folders and contained in a box with handles.
These lists shall reflect all pretrial evidentiary rulings and shall be tendered to the Courtroom Deputy at the beginning of trial.
During trial and on a daily basis, each party shall tender to the Court a new list reflecting any additional exhibits admitted the previous day.
G. Within five business days of the conclusion of trial, each party shall submit to the Courtroom Deputy a disk or disks containing their respective admitted trial exhibits in PDF format with the exception of sealed exhibits.
cite Cite Document

No. 168 ORDER granting 156 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Huawei Device Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 168 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 22, 2021)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)Granted
In the Motion, the parties inform the Court that they have resolved Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC’s (“Gesture”) claims for relief against Defendants Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) asserted in the above-captioned action, except with regard to the accused Nexus 6P product, and further represent that Gesture stipulates that the Nexus 6P does not infringe any claim of any patent asserted in the above-captioned action.
Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that all claims by Gesture against Huawei in the above-captioned action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and fees relating to this litigation (including attorney and expert fees and expenses).
The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN AS OPEN the above- captioned case as other parties and claims remain.
cite Cite Document

No. 165 ORDER granting 125 Motion to Withdraw 98 SEALED MOTION to Compel Supplementation of Plaintiff's ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 165 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 21, 2021)
Motion to WithdrawGranted
Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion to Compel
Supplementation of Plaintiff’s Privilege Log (Dkt. No. 98) (Dkt. No. 125) (the “Motion”).
In the Motion, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) request to withdraw their Motion to Compel Supplementation of Plaintiff's Privilege Log (Dkt. No. 98) because Plaintiff served its Supplemental and Amended Privilege Log on November 10, 2021.
Having considered the Motion, and noting that it is unopposed, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Samsung’s Motion to Compel Supplementation of Plaintiff’s Privilege Log (Dkt. No. 98) is withdrawn.
cite Cite Document

No. 155 SIXTH AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER re 154 Motion to Amend/Correct the Fifth Docket Control ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 155 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 8, 2021)
This deadline is exclusive of Plaintiff’s response to Samsung Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgement of no infringement and damages.
The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will benefit the case after the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order.
For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of the relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive to the Court.
The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending; The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day, unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special provision for the parties in the other case; The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.
The contentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good cause.
cite Cite Document

No. 152 ORDER granting 126 Motion To Extend Mediation Deadline

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 152 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 7, 2021)
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion To Extend Mediation Deadline (Dkt. No. 126)
In the Motion, the Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) request the Court extend the deadline for the Parties to mediate Case No. 2:21-cv-00041 up to and through January 5, 2022.
The Court held a telephonic status conference on December 6, 2021, and the parties informed the Court that they still believe the case is amenable to mediation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties’ deadline to mediate in Case No. 2:21-cv-00041 is extended up to and through January 5, 2022.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of December, 2021.
cite Cite Document

No. 153 ORDER granting 132 Motion to Stay Certain Deadlines And Notice OfPartial Settlement

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 153 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 7, 2021)
Motion to StayGranted
Before the Court is the Renewed Joint Motion To Stay Certain Deadlines And Notice Of
In the Motion, the Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture Techs.”) and Defendants Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) request the Court stay all proceedings between Plaintiff and Defendants, including all pending deadlines between the parties until December 6, 2021.
During a telephonic status conference held on December 6, 2021, the parties informed the Court that they have reached a settlement in principle and were ready to dismiss all claims in Case No. 2:21-cv-00040 but required additional time to finalize a settlement agreement between them.
Having considered the Motion, its joint nature, and the parties request for additional time during the status conference, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
Accordingly, is it ORDERED that all pending deadlines between Gesture Techs.
cite Cite Document

No. 119 FIFTH AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER granting 116 Motion to Amend/Correct

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 119 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 8, 2021)
January 10, 2022 Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures 1 The Parties are referred to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in Advance of Voir Dire.
November 17, 2021 Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Technical Expert Witnesses (*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without showing good cause.
The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will benefit the case after the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order.
For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of the relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive to the Court.
The contentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good cause.
cite Cite Document

No. 117 ORDER - the Court ORDERS the parties to mediate in this case promptly and at a mutually agreeable ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 117 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 5, 2021)
In the Notice, the Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) inform the court that they believe that Case No. 2:21-cv-00041 is amenable to mediation and the parties have agreed to mediate in front of the Honorable David Folsom.
Having considered the Notice, and noting its joint nature, the Court ORDERS the parties to mediate in this case promptly and at a mutually agreeable date, but no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order.
To ensure that mediation is as productive as possible, the Court hereby ORDERS that each party shall personally attend such mediation with lead counsel, local counsel, and a representative who has full and unilateral authority to act on and compromise on all pending disputes.
In accordance with the parties’ joint request, the Court further ORDERS that Dr. Timothy Pryor may attend the mediation by video conference.
The district’s applicable local rules shall otherwise govern and apply in all respects.
cite Cite Document

No. 114 FOURTH AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER granting 96 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct The Fourth Docket ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 114 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 2, 2021)
Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the Party with the Burden of Proof 2 The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that “[a] party’s failure to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein creates a presumption that the party does not controvert the facts set out by movant and has no evidence to offer in opposition to the motion.” If the deadline under Local Rule CV 7(e) exceeds the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions, the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions controls.
The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will benefit the case after the issuance of the Court’s claim construction order.
For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of the relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive to the Court.
The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending; The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day, unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special provision for the parties in the other case; The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.
The contentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the Court based upon a showing of good cause.
cite Cite Document

No. 109 ORDER granting 101 Motion to Stay Certain Deadlines and Notice of Partial Settlement

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 109 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 1, 2021)
Motion to StayGranted
Before the Court is Joint Motion to Stay Certain Deadlines and Notice of Partial Settlement
The parties request a thirty (30) day stay of all pending deadlines regarding claims or issues that solely relate to the accused Huawei products other than the Nexus 6P in order to finalize the documents pertaining to the partial settlement.
Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that is should be and hereby is GRANTED.
and Huawei regarding claims or issues that solely relate to the accused Huawei products other than the Nexus 6P are STAYED for thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, during which time appropriate dismissal papers are to be filed with the Court.
The parties shall continue prosecuting all other issues and claims pertaining to the remaining Nexus 6P product as previously ordered by the Court.
cite Cite Document

No. 105 ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 105 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 25, 2021)
The Court previously appointed Mr. David Keyzer as the technical advisor to the Court in
the above-captioned cases with his costs to be assessed equally between Plaintiff and Defendants and timely paid as billed.
(Dkt. No.
The Court has received Mr. Keyzer’s invoice for services through September 22, 2021, in the amount of $30,719.50 and hereby ORDERS payment to be promptly made as follows:
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of October, 2021.
cite Cite Document

No. 93 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 93 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 12, 2021)
Motion for Claim Construction
The Abstract of the ’431 Patent states: Method and apparatus are disclosed to enable rapid TV camera and computer based sensing in many practical applications, including, but not limited to, handheld devices, cars, and video games.
In addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.
The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
“A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 572 U.S. 898.
The specification is consistent with this understanding: The invention herein and disclosed in portions of other copending applications noted above, comprehends a combination of one or more TV cameras (or other suitable electro-optical sensors) and a computer to provide various position and orientation related functions of use.
cite Cite Document

No. 1 COMPLAINT For Patent Infringement filed by Gesture Technology Partners LLC; Jury Demand

Document Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:22-cv-03535, No. 1 (N.D.Ill. Jul. 7, 2022)
Complaint
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is a limited liability company filed under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business at 2815 Joelle Drive, Toledo, OH 43617.
Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
Motorola, an indirect subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, is involved in the development and sale of hardware and software relating to mobile products, such as smartphones.
The Accused Products have features including, but not limited to, at least the following: Auto Smile Capture, Shot Optimization, Smart Composition, Portrait Mode, Cutout, Live Filter, Best Shot, Google Lens Integration, AR Sticker, Electronic Image Stabilization, Face Beauty, Attentive Display, Group Selfie, Gesture Selfie, and facial recognition (the “Features”).
Thus, Motorola is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
cite Cite Document

No. 78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap: Markman Hearing held ...

Document Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, 2:21-cv-00040, No. 78 (E.D.Tex. Sep. 21, 2021)
09:03 AM Counsel announced ready for hearing.
Presented argument on behalf of Plaintiff: Mr. Landis and Mr. Wittenzellner.
Presented argument on behalf of Defendants: Mr. Kennerly (Samsung), Mr. Devendran (Samsung) and Mr. Baldauf (Huawei).
10:45 AM Court continued hearing claim construction argument.
11:51 AM Court took claim construction under submission.
cite Cite Document

28 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 28 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022)
If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.
cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>