Lumen View Tech. v. Findthebest.com was decided on January 22, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held that plaintiff-Lumen View’s patent was directed to an abstract idea, and therefore was invalid under § 101. Defendant Findthebest then moved for an award of attorney fees under § …
Scientific v. Cisco was decided on December 3, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the patent-in-suit concerned wireless local area network technology, and was included in the 802.11a “Wi-Fi” standard (first published in 1999). Around 2003, plaintiff Scientific developed a form license offer (“the Rate Card”), which it …
Summit 6 v. Samsung was decided on September 21, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The patent relates to the processing and uploading of digital photos. The jury found plaintiff Summit’s patent not invalid and infringed, and awarded Summit $15 million in damages. Summit settled with another defendant, RIM, before trial. …
Adjustacam v. Newegg is a nonprecedential case decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after dismissing the case, the district court denied defendant Newegg’s motion for attorney fees under the then-prevailing Brooks Furniture standard. Newegg appealed the denial of fees. Plaintiff AdjustaCam appealed claim construction. …
eBay v. MerkExchange was decided by the Supreme Court on May 15, 2006 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. Following a jury verdict of infringement, the district court denied plaintiff MerkExchange’s motion for a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed and ruled that MerkExchange was entitled to an injunction, applying …
Gart v. Logitech was decided on August 21, 2001 on appeal from the Central District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In 1989, prior to the issuance of the patent-in-suit, plaintiff Gart approached defendant Logitech to discuss licensing the …
SRI International v. Advanced Technology Laboratories was decided on October 23, 1997 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In May 1986, plaintiff SRI sent a letter to defendant Advanced Technology Laboratories (ATL) offering a non-exclusive license. …