Search court records - party Christopher Bovenkamp, page 5

No. 149 ORDER Setting Hearing on Emergency Motion 148 . Plaintiffs Veritas Vincit, LLC and William ...

Document Vincit, LLC et al v. Brown et al, 4:24-cv-00079, No. 149 (E.D.Tex. Sep. 16, 2024)

On September 12, 2024, the Court received the Emergency Opposed Motion of Defendants Charles William Durham II and Birnam Wood Capital, LLC for Stay Pending Appeal or for Setting a Reduced Bond (the “Emergency Motion”).1 (Dkt. No.

Plaintiffs Veritas Vincit, LLC and William Berry Dean, III are hereby ORDERED to file a response to the Emergency Motion on or before Thursday, September 26, 2024.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that execution of the judgment entered on August 23, 2024 in the above-captioned case shall be STAYED for an additional thirty (30) days up to and including October 23, 2024.

1 The Emergency Motion was filed by Defendants Charles William Durham II and Birnam Wood Capital, LLC.

(See id.) Therefore, this Order does not grant any relief or affect any deadlines with respect to Defendant Fred Alan Brown.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
Analyze Party
- G.R. Akin
- Veritas Vincit
Analyze Firm

No. 166 MEMORANDUM ORDER: Exclusion of Plaintiffs new AIC theory is appropriate

Document Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 1:22-cv-00677, No. 166 (D.Del. Aug. 28, 2024)

The expert, Dr. Almeroth, analyzed Defendant's Adaptive Image Compression ("AIC") product to prove it too infringed the '745 patent.

Based on the record before me, I cannot conclude that the two products are so similar that accusing IVM of infringement would put Defendant on notice of Plaintiffs AIC theory.

Defendant's fact discovery efforts, analysis of prior art, and development of invalidity theories were premised on the only accused product being IVM.

Defendant has plausibly stated that an accusation of the AIC product would require it to analyze more prior art and develop different invalidity arguments.

2 Plaintiff, on the other hand, has not satisfactorily explained why it never attempted to supplement its infringement contentions with the AIC 2 My general view is that invalidity objectively depends upon the asserted claims and their constructions.

Cite Document

Analyze