Case: Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2018
|
|
- Eugene Lambert
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/ (LEAD), -1440, -1441, -1444, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA INC., ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE USA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., NINTENDO CO., LTD., NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Appeal from the United District Court for the Northern District of California, Case Nos. 3:12-cv VC, 3:12-cv VC, 3:12-cv VC, 3:12-cv VC, 3:12-cv VC, and 3:12-cv VC. The Honorable Vince Chhabria, Judge Presiding. APPELLANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FROM THE 336 PATENT FILE HISTORY Dated: May 10, 2018 DENISE DE MORY (SBN ) ddemory@bdiplaw.com HENRY BUNSOW (SBN 60707) hbunsow@bdiplaw.com AARON HAND (SBN ) ahand@bdiplaw.com LAUREN ROBINSON (SBN ) lrobinson@bdiplaw.com BUNSOW DE MORY LLP 701 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA Telephone: (650) Facsimile: (415)
2 Case: Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2018 ARGUMENT Throughout the underlying and prior proceedings, Plaintiffs-Appellants consistently maintained that there was no file history disclaimer during the prosecution of the 336 Patent; Appellants therefore have not waived their challenges to the application of disclaimer into the construction of the entire oscillator claim term. 1 Because Appellants argument has not been waived, Appellants contend that this Court has discretion to consider the additional materials. Moreover, as detailed in Appellants Appeal Brief, the district court did not simply apply this Court s prior claim construction holding in its noninfringement analysis. Rather (at the urging of Defendants-Appellees), the district court engaged in further claim construction to impose functional limitations and require that the entire oscillator be free-running in order to achieve a benefit attributed to one embodiment described in the specification. 2 The result: An unforeseen situation in which the district court applied disclaimer to read out the claimed embodiment indeed, the district court read out the very same structure that the Applicants asserted was a point of novelty (an argument that the Examiner accepted). Additional portions of the file history that were not previously 1 Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, (Fed. Cir. 2005). 2 See Appx6-Appx8. For the Court s convenience, citations are made to the district court order ( MSJ Order ) included in the Appeal Brief Addendum filed at ECF No. 47, pp. Appx2 Appx8. A copy is also filed at ECF No. 1-2, pp
3 Case: Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2018 considered provide additional context to confirm that the result reached in the lower court was inconsistent with the prosecution history and this Court s prior claim construction holding. This Court should exercise its discretion to consider the undisputed public records in performing its legal analysis; at minimum, it is appropriate to defer consideration of these issues to the merits panel. I. THE PROFFERED FILE HISTORY EXCERPTS ARE FITTING FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD A. Appellees do not challenge the accuracy or authenticity of the proffered materials, which are amenable to judicial notice. The proffered file history excerpts fall squarely within the ambit of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) because their source and accuracy are not disputed in Appellees Response. 3 Indeed, they are excerpted from the very same source as the materials relied upon by both the district court and this Court in the prior appeal. For this reason, Appellees citation to Am. Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 828 F.2d 734, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1987), where no portion of the file history was in the record, is inapposite. 4 Here, the lower court s revisiting of claim construction on remand to arrive at a result that contradicts the intrinsic record warrants that this Court consider additional facts from the intrinsic record. 3 See generally Appellees Resp. (ECF No. 54). 4 See Appellees Resp. at
4 Case: Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2018 B. The district court engaged in further claim construction on remand, warranting consideration of the intrinsic record. Appellees assert that it is too late to consider the proffered materials because this Court already decided claim construction in a prior appeal. 5 But that argument overlooks the district court s foray into claim construction on remand. The district court s summary judgment order is premised on its injection of functional limitations addressing the behavior of the accused products during operation to assess the asserted apparatus claims. 6 The district court ultimately held that an accused product must operate as a free running oscillator to satisfy the asserted claims even though that limitation is not found anywhere in this Court s prior opinion. 7 Similarly, the district court faulted Plaintiffs in its summary judgment opinion for failing to provide[] a definition of command 5 See Appellees Resp. at E.g., Appx5 (MSJ Order at 3) ( The record shows that, within a PLL, the accused oscillators operate at frequencies comparably stable to those of crystal oscillators. ), Appx7 (MSJ Order at 5) ( But the accused oscillators don t operate in isolation. ) (all emphasis added). All asserted claims were apparatus claims. 7 Compare Appx8 (MSJ Order at 6) ( [U]nlike the free-running oscillators described in the patent, the accused oscillators ) (emphasis added), with Tech. Properties Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 849 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). -4-
5 Case: Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 05/10/2018 input that would exclude inputs of these kinds. 8 This again demonstrates that the lower court was engaged in claim construction on remand. C. In addition to taking judicial notice, supplementation of the record is within this Court s discretion. As briefly described above, and more fully detailed in Appellants Appeal Brief, the district court s summary judgment decision rested on the court s further claim construction analysis on remand. That analysis is purely an issue of law which is subject to de novo consideration by this Court on appeal. Appellants Appeal Brief demonstrates how, based on the existing record, the lower court erred in its analysis and conclusions. In addition, Appellants current counsel, who were not counsel of record on the prior appeal or in prior claim construction proceedings, observed that additional portions of the file history (namely, the office actions that gave rise to the Applicants arguments, and the Examiner s record of interview that confirm the reasons for allowance) confirm that the lower court s injection of additional functional limitations into the apparatus claims disregarded the intrinsic record, and call into question the original finding of disclaimer. Appellees Response does not address the inherent power of an appellate court to supplement the record on appeal particularly for legal issues. Indeed, 8 Appx6 (MSJ Order at 4). -5-
6 Case: Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 05/10/2018 Appellees cases are distinguishable because they each refused to consider additional materials to decide to disputed factual issues. 9 See, e.g., Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 720 F.2d 1572, 1581 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (rejecting addition of new prior art references on appeal); Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 824 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (declining to consider facts from an ongoing litigation and post-appeal reexamination events to assess facts concerning noninfringing alternatives). And Ballard Med. Prod. v. Wright, 821 F.2d 642, 643 (Fed. Cir. 1987) considered a very different issue, namely whether to impose sanctions for unauthorized inclusion of materials in the appendix. II. IF NOT GRANTED OUTRIGHT, APPELLANTS MOTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE MERITS PANEL Appellees concede that a decision on this Motion involves issues that are intertwined with consideration of the merits. For example, Appellees assert that they will be arguing waiver and law of the case with respect to these new arguments in their forthcoming merits brief on appeal. 10 Appellants are not privy to those arguments and are therefore unable to respond to them at this juncture. Nonetheless, Appellants dispute that there is any waiver or that the law of the case doctrine bars consideration of Appellants arguments or confirming evidence 9 Appellees Resp. at Appellees Resp. at
7 Case: Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 05/10/2018 from the file history. Instead, the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary. 11 Thus, if the merits panel declines to find that the law of the case doctrine or the waiver doctrine bars Appellants arguments, then there would be no substantive bar to considering these materials. Because the propriety of the Court s consideration of the certified file history excerpts is dependent on and relevant to its consideration of Appellees substantive arguments, the Motion should be referred to the merits panel if it is not explicitly granted while briefing is underway. CONCLUSION Appellants respectfully request that the Court grant its motion and take judicial notice of the additional file history excerpts and allow them to be included in the Record and Joint Appendix. Alternatively, Appellants request that a ruling on this Motion be referred to the merits panel. 11 E.g., Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983) ( Law of the case directs a court s discretion, it does not limit the tribunal s power. ). -7-
8 Case: Document: 55 Page: 8 Filed: 05/10/2018 Respectfully Submitted, Dated: May 10, 2018 /s/ Denise De Mory DENISE DE MORY (SBN ) ddemory@bdiplaw.com HENRY BUNSOW (SBN 60707) hbunsow@bdiplaw.com AARON HAND (SBN ) ahand@bdiplaw.com LAUREN ROBINSON (SBN ) lrobinson@bdiplaw.com BUNSOW DE MORY LLP 701 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA Telephone: (650) Facsimile: (415) Counsel for Appellants, TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT LIMITATION The undersigned certifies that this Reply includes 1275 words (using the word count feature of Microsoft Word 2016), and therefore complies with the limit set forth in Fed. R. App. Proc. 27(d)(2) and Fed. Cir. Rule 27(d). /s/ Denise M. De Mory Denise M. De Mory -8-
9 Case: Document: 55 Page: 9 Filed: 05/10/2018 FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 Rev. 10/17 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Technology Properties Limited, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al. with , -1441, -1444, (lead) (consolidated) Case No. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for the: (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) (name of party) Technology Properties Limited LLC, Patriot Scientific Corporation, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, certifies the following (use None if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary): 1. Full Name of Party Represented by me 2. Name of Real Party in interest (Please only include any real party in interest NOT identified in Question 3) represented by me is: Technology Properties Limited LLC Technology Properties Limited LLC Patriot Scientific Corporation Patriot Scientific Corporation Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC 3. Parent corporations and publicly held companies that own 10% or more of stock in the party n/a n/a (1) Technology Properties Limited LLC; and (2) Patriot Scientific Corporation. Patriot Scientific Corporation is a publicly held company and owns 10 percent or more of the membership interest in Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC. 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not or will not enter an appearance in this case) are: See Attachment A.
10 Case: Document: 55 Page: 10 Filed: 05/10/2018 FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 Rev. 10/17 5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir. R (a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary). See Attachment B. 5/10/2018 /s/ Denise De Mory Date Please Note: All questions must be answered All Counsel of Record Via Court's CM-ECF cc: Signature of counsel Denise De Mory Printed name of counsel Reset Fields
11 Case: Document: 55 Page: 11 Filed: 05/10/2018 ATTACHMENT A Current Counsel of Record for all Plaintiffs/Appellees: TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC; PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC; and PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION. Henry Bunsow (SBN 60707) hbunsow@bdiplaw.com Denise De Mory (SBN ) ddemory@bdiplaw.com Aaron Hand (SBN ) ahand@bdiplaw.com Lauren Robinson (SBN ) lrobinson@bdiplaw.com BUNSOW DE MORY LLP 701 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA Telephone: (650) Facsimile: (415)
12 Case: Document: 55 Page: 12 Filed: 05/10/2018 Previous Counsel of Record for Plaintiff/Appellee: TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC Barry J Bumgardner Edward Reese Nelson, III John Paul Murphy Stacy Greskowiak McNulty (Terminated on 12/2/15) Thomas Christopher Cecil (Terminated on 12/2/15) NELSON BUMGARDNER, PC 3131 W 7th St., Suite 300 Ft Worth, Tx barry@nelbum.com ed@nelbum.com murphy@nelbum.com stacie@nelbum.com tom@nelbum.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2017 Michelle Gail Breit Neustal Law Offices, LTD 2534 South University Drive, Suite 4 Fargo, ND (701) Fax: (701) michelle@neustel.com TERMINATED: 04/15/2015 William L. Bretschneider Silicon Valley Law Group 50 W. San Fernando Street Suite 750 San Jose, CA Fax: wlb@svlg.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2017 Michael William Stebbins Silicon Valley Law Group One North Market Street Suite 200 San Jose, CA Fax: mws@svlg.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2017 David L. Lansky Philip William Marsh Thomas T. Carmack (Terminated 4/1/15) Vinh Huy Pham Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 3000 El Camino Real Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500 Palo Alto, CA Fax: David.Lansky@apks.com (Inactive) Philip.Marsh@apks.com Tom.Carmack@apks.com vinh.pham@apks.com TERMINATED: 04/16/2015 James Carl Otteson Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 1801 Page Mill Road Suite 110 Palo Alto, CA Fax: James.Otteson@apks.com TERMINATED: 04/16/2015 2
13 Case: Document: 55 Page: 13 Filed: 05/10/2018 Previous Counsel of Record for Plaintiff/Appellee: PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC Barry J Bumgardner Edward Reese Nelson, III John Paul Murphy Stacy Greskowiak McNulty (Terminated on 12/2/15) Thomas Christopher Cecil (Terminated on 12/2/15) NELSON BUMGARDNER, PC 3131 W 7th St., Suite 300 Ft Worth, Tx barry@nelbum.com ed@nelbum.com murphy@nelbum.com stacie@nelbum.com tom@nelbum.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2017 Christopher D. Banys Jennifer Lu Gilbert Richard Cheng-hong Lin BANYS, P.C Duane Avenue Santa Clara, CA Fax: cdb@banyspc.com jlg@banyspc.com rcl@banyspc.com TERMINATED: 06/05/2017 Christopher J Judge BANYS PC 1032 Elwell Ct., No. 100 Palo Alto, CA TERMINATED: 06/05/2017 David L. Lansky Philip William Marsh Thomas T. Carmack (Terminated 4/1/15) Vinh Huy Pham ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 3000 El Camino Real Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500 Palo Alto, CA Fax: David.Lansky@apks.com (Inactive) Philip.Marsh@apks.com Tom.Carmack@apks.com vinh.pham@apks.com TERMINATED: 04/16/2015 Eric Miller Albritton ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Tx Fax: ema@emafirm.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2017 James Carl Otteson ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 110 Palo Alto, CA Fax: James.Otteson@apks.com TERMINATED: 04/16/2015 3
14 Case: Document: 55 Page: 14 Filed: 05/10/2018 Michelle Gail Breit Neustal Law Offices, LTD 2534 South University Drive, Suite 4 Fargo, ND (701) Fax: (701) michelle@neustel.com TERMINATED: 04/15/2015 4
15 Case: Document: 55 Page: 15 Filed: 05/10/2018 Previous Counsel of Record for Plaintiff/Appellee: PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION Charles T. Hoge Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP 350 Tenth Avenue, Suite 1300 San Diego, California Phone: (619) Fax: (619) TERMINATED: 08/11/2017 5
16 Case: Document: 55 Page: 16 Filed: 05/10/2018 ATTACHMENT B Appealed from the Northern District Court: Tech. Properties Limited v. Huawei, Case No. 3:12-cv Tech. Properties Limited v. ZTE Corp, Case No. 3:12-cv-3876 Tech. Properties Limited v. Samsung, Case No. 3:12-cv-3877 Tech. Properties Limited v. LG Electronics, Case No. 3:12-cv-3880 Tech. Properties Limited v. Nintendo, Case No. 3:12-cv-3881 Consolidated with Court of Appeals, Federal District: Tech. Properties Limited v. Huawei, Case No (LEAD) Tech. Properties Limited v. ZTE Corp, Case No Tech. Properties Limited v. Samsung, Case No Tech. Properties Limited v. LG Electronics, Case Tech. Properties Limited v. Nintendo, Case No
17 Case: Document: 55 Page: 17 Filed: 05/10/2018 FORM 30. Certificate of Service Form 30 Rev. 03/16 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I served a copy on counsel of record on by: May 10, 2018 U.S. Mail Fax Hand Electronic Means (by or CM/ECF) Denise De Mory Name of Counsel /s/ Denise De Mory Signature of Counsel Law Firm Address City, State, Zip Telephone Number Fax Number Address Bunsow De Mory LLP 701 El Camino Real Redwood City,CA (650) (415) ddemory@bdiplaw.com NOTE: For attorneys filing documents electronically, the name of the filer under whose log-in and password a document is submitted must be preceded by an "/s/" and typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear. Graphic and other electronic signatures are discouraged. Reset Fields
CASE NOS , -1307, -1309, -1310, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 05/27/2016 CASE NOS. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, PHOENIX
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF DOCKETING 18-1441 - Technology Properties Limited v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. Date of docketing: January 22, 2018 Appeal from: United
More informationCase 3:12-cv VC Document 119 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 13 (Counsel listed on signature page)
Case :-cv-0-vc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of (Counsel listed on signature page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 0 TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, et al,
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document77 Filed06/25/15 Page1 of 5
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC, and PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document70 Filed06/23/15 Page1 of 3
Case:-cv-0-VC Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 MARK D. FOWLER, Bar No. mark.fowler@dlapiper.com AARON WAINSCOAT, Bar No. aaron.wainscoat@dlapiper.com ERIK R. FUEHRER, Bar No. erik.fuehrer@dlapiper.com 000
More information(Lead), -1440, -1441, -1444, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 18-1439 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/03/2018 2018-1439 (Lead), -1440, -1441, -1444, -1445 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, PHOENIX DIGITAL
More informationCase4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com PHILIP W. MARSH, State Bar No. phil@agilityiplaw.com
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document46 Filed01/12/15 Page1 of 5
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0// Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com AGILITY IP LAW, LLP Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA
More informationCase: Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/ , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1076 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2014 2014-1076, -1317 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC., Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, v.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-1 Page: 1 Filed: 03/03/2017 (1 of 20) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document519 Filed08/22/13 Page1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of [See Signature Page for Counsel] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY,
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document88 Filed06/09/15 Page1 of 2
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of Christopher D. Banys cdb@banyspc.com Banys, PC Elwell Court, Suite 0 Palo Alto, CA 0 Tel: 0-0-0 Fax: 0--0 June, 0 VIA ELECTRONIC CASE FILES (ECF) Magistrate Judge
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com AGILITY IP LAW, LLP Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park,
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document494 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com PHILIP W. MARSH, State Bar No. phil@agilityiplaw.com
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Petitioner. Miscellaneous Docket No. 162 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the
More informationCase3:12-cv SI Document33 Filed10/21/14 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-00-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Shelley Mack (SBN 0), mack@fr.com Fish & Richardson P.C. 00 Arguello Street, Suite 00 Redwood City, CA 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) -0 Michael J. McKeon
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document50 Filed02/18/15 Page1 of 17
Case:-cv-0-VC Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com PHILIP W. MARSH, State Bar No. phil@agilityiplaw.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY, Plaintiffs, Case No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. HTC AMERICA,
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document96 Filed08/18/15 Page1 of 26
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0// Page of (Counsel listed on signature page) 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, et al.,
More informationCase 5:11-cv LHK Document 3322 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed /0/ Page of [COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE] 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION APPLE INC., a California corporation, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-16051, 05/19/2016, ID: 9982763, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-7044 Document #1773036 Filed: 02/12/2019 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT RUSORO MINING LIMITED, Petitioner-Appellee, No. 18-7044 (D.D.C.
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC MICROSOFT CORP.
2015-1863 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationCase , Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, , Page1 of 1
Case 16-413, Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, 1731407, Page1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationPost-SAS: What s Actually Happening. Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran
Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran June 21, 2018 Housekeeping Questions can be entered via the Q&A Widget open on the
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1392 SENTRY PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and HERO PRODUCTS, INC., v. EAGLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendant-Appellee. Lesley
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant. REPORT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 18-131 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2018 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: INTEX RECREATION CORP., INTEX TRADING LTD., THE COLEMAN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-1224 Document: 131 Page: 1 Filed: 05/19/2017 2017-1224 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Non-Profit Mutual Insurance
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN MCARDLE, vs. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
No. 09-17218 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN MCARDLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-511 (CE)
More informationCase: , 04/25/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 61-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-15078, 04/25/2018, ID: 10849962, DktEntry: 61-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-0-sc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Ben F. Pierce Gore (SBN ) PRATT & ASSOCIATES The Alameda, Suite San Jose, CA Telephone: (0) -0 Fax: (0) -0 pgore@prattattorneys.com David P. Wilson (admitted
More informationCase 3:12-cv VC Document 143 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 27
Case :-cv-0-vc Document Filed /0/ Page of (Counsel listed on signature page) 0 0 TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. TECHNOLOGY
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-16942 09/22/2009 Page: 1 of 66 DktEntry: 7070869 No. 09-16942 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
CHRISTINE WARREN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 18, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-B-BLM Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 ROBERT S. BREWER, JR. (SBN ) JAMES S. MCNEILL (SBN ) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP 0 B Street, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone:() -00 Facsimile: () -0
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-16310 09/17/2012 ID: 8325958 DktEntry: 65-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Rachel Krevans (SBN ) Market Street San Francisco, California 0- Telephone:..000 Facsimile:.. rkrevans@mofo.com Grant J. Esposito (pro hac vice) 0 West th Street
More informationCase 3:16-md VC Document 2391 Filed 12/31/18 Page 1 of 5
Case :-md-0-vc Document Filed // Page of 0 WILKINSON WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP Brian L. Stekloff (pro hac vice (bstekloff@wilkinsonwalsh.com Rakesh Kilaru (pro hac vice (rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com 0 M St. NW
More informationCase: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 18-15054, 04/17/2019, ID: 11266832, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase 4:11-cv SBA Document 93 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-0-sba Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 BRYAN WILSON (CA SBN ) BWilson@mofo.com DIEK VAN NORT (CA SBN ) DVanNort@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 0-0 Telephone:
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1601966 Filed: 03/02/2016 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PERRY CAPITAL LLC,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN ) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN ) mjacobs@mofo.com RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN ) rhung@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER
More informationCase 3:09-cv IEG -BGS Document 55 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 5
Case :0-cv-0-IEG -BGS Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 C. D. Michel SBN Clint B. Monfort SBN 0 Sean A. Brady SBN 00 cmichel@michellawyers.com MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 0 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 00 Long Beach,
More informationCase: , 12/29/2014, ID: , DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-56778, 12/29/2014, ID: 9363202, DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 FILED (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LUMEN VIEW TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FINDTHEBEST.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1275, 2015-1325 Appeals from the United States District
More informationCase 4:05-cv Y Document 110 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00470-Y Document 110 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION RICHARD FRAME, WENDALL DECKER, SCOTT UPDIKE, JUAN NUNEZ,
More informationCase 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:11-cv-00946-RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1539 PREDICATE LOGIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRIBUTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Christopher S. Marchese, Fish & Richardson
More informationCase5:11-cv LHK Document902 Filed05/07/12 Page1 of 7
Case:-cv-0-LHK Document0 Filed0/0/ Page of [COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES] 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 APPLE INC., a California corporation, v.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RING & PINION SERVICE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARB CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1238 Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES INC., D/B/A HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (USA) Plaintiff, V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455 E. OLIVER CAPITAL GROUP,
More informationCase No IN RE BIGCOMMERCE, INC.,
Case: 18-120 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 01/04/2018 Case No. 2018-120 IN RE BIGCOMMERCE, INC., Petitioner. On Petition For A Writ of Mandamus To The United States District Court for the Eastern District
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ILSA SARAVIA, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 18-15114 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ILSA SARAVIA, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, et al. Defendants-Appellants.
More informationCase 1:13-cv MMS Document 54 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00466-MMS Document 54 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Case No. 13-cv-00466-MMS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
American Navigation Systems, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al Doc. 1 1 KALPANA SRINIVASAN (S.B. #0) 01 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 0 Los Angeles, California 00-0 Telephone: --0 Facsimile: --0
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-55881 06/25/2013 ID: 8680068 DktEntry: 14 Page: 1 of 10 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INGENUITY 13 LLC Plaintiff and PRENDA LAW, INC., Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-55881 [Related
More informationCase 1:18-cv JFK Document 62 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-00182-JFK Document 62 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 Anne Champion Direct: +1 212.351.5361 Fax: +1 212.351.5281 AChampion@gibsondunn.com Southern District of New York United States Courthouse
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.
Appellate Case: 16-4154 Document: 01019730944 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-4154 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, No Plaintiffs-Appellants, No
Appellate Case: 14-1290 Document: 01019457159 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT COLORADO OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION, et al., vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, No.
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-00-JF Document0 Filed0// Page of ** E-filed January, 0 ** 0 0 HTC CORP., et al., v. Plaintiffs, NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
More informationCase 4:05-cv Y Document 86 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID 789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00470-Y Document 86 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID 789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION RICHARD FRAME, WENDELL DECKER, and SCOTT UPDIKE, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 5:14-cv BLF Document 798 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:4-cv-05344-BLF Document 798 Filed 09/26/8 Page of 7 Kathleen Sullivan (SBN 24226) kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com Todd Anten (pro hac vice) toddanten@quinnemanuel.com 5 Madison Avenue, 22 nd Floor
More informationCase , Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, , Page1 of 1
Case 15-1886, Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, 1555504, Page1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No
Case: 17-10883 Document: 00514739890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT VICKIE FORBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
More informationLeave to file reply brief of up to 10,500 words.
Case: 14-319 Document: 116 Page: 1 08/14/2014 1295884 5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationCase3:14-cv RS Document66 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 9
Case:-cv-00-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Stephen Sotch-Marmo (admitted pro hac vice) stephen.scotch-marmo@morganlewis.com Michael James Ableson (admitted pro hac vice) michael.ableson@morganlewis.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN ) jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 00 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 0-0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) - Attorney for Plaintiff
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION LEON STAMBLER, v. Plaintiff, CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CAPITAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:14-CV ELR
Case: 16-13031 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 1 of 12 RYAN PERRY, versus IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13031 D.C. Docket No. 1:14-CV-02926-ELR Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHA Document 193 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 6
Case :-cv-00-wha Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 0 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com Andrea E. Neuman, SBN aneuman@gibsondunn.com William E. Thomson, SBN wthomson@gibsondunn.com Ethan
More informationCase 3:17-cv VC Document 48 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-00-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 0 Austin L. Klar (SBN California Street San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: ( -00 Fax: ( -00 E-mail: mark.mckane@kirkland.com austin.klar@kirkland.com
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 110 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 932 as Exhibit A. The chart in Exhibit A identifies the intrinsic and ext
Case 2:16-cv-00056-JRG-RSP Document 110 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 931 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56657, 06/08/2016, ID: 10006069, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 1 of 11 (1 of 16) FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH A. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL &
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1298 GOLDEN BLOUNT, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, ROBERT H. PETERSON CO., Defendant-Appellant. William D. Harris, Jr., Schulz & Associates, of Dallas,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No 14-1128 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT LESLIE S. KLINGER, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) CONAN DOYLE ESTATE, LTD., ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) Appeal from the United
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP David Eiseman (Bar No. ) davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com Carl G. Anderson (Bar No. ) carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com 0 California
More informationCOGA S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
Court of Appeals, State of Colorado 2 East 14 th Ave., Denver, CO 80203 Name & Address of Lower Court: District Court, Larimer County, Colorado Trial Court Judge: The Honorable Gregory M. Lammons Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiffs, V. C.A. No. 11-339-LPS CENTURYTEL BROADBAND SERVICES, LLC and QWEST CORPORATION, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) DATATERN, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 11-11970-FDS ) MICROSTRATEGY, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) SAYLOR, J. MEMORANDUM AND
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document
PlainSite Legal Document California Northern District Court Case No. 5:14-cv-02396-JTM Think Computer Foundation et al v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts et al Document 57 View Document
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 138
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 138 Court of Appeals No. 12CA1013 City and County of Denver District Court No. 11CV893 Honorable Edward D. Bronfin, Judge Annette Berenson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USA
More informationPaper No Filed: September 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 12 571.272.7822 Filed: September 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM, LLC, Petitioner, v.
More informationPlaintiff s Memorandum of Law in Reply to the. Defendants Response to the. Plaintiff s Motion to Reconsider Order of Abstention
Case 3:11-cv-00005-JPB Document 44 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 312 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT MARTINSBURG West Virginia Citizens Defense
More informationLOBBYIST DISCLOSURE REPORT
County of Santa Clara Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110-1770 (408) 299-5001 FAX 938-4525 Megan Doyle
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 18-15068, 04/10/2018, ID: 10831190, DktEntry: 137-2, Page 1 of 15 Nos. 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18-15128, 18-15133, 18-15134 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BISCOTTI INC., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORP., Defendant. ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP Before the Court are
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHO Document 108 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-who Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General BRIAN STRETCH United States Attorney JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director STEPHEN J. BUCKINGHAM (Md. Bar)
More informationCase: , 08/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-35945, 08/14/2017, ID: 10542764, DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338
Case 2:15-cv-00961-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE
More informationCase: , 04/24/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-15419, 04/24/2017, ID: 10408045, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 (1 of 7) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55693, 11/07/2016, ID: 10189498, DktEntry: 56, Page 1 of 9 Nos. 16-55693, 16-55894 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. INTERNET
More information