§Why CasetextPricing

Liqwd, Inc. et al v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. et al

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

9 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Gypsum Co.

    333 U.S. 364 (1948)   Cited 10,419 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight

  2. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.

    572 U.S. 915 (2014)   Cited 210 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because a "method patent ... is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out," a competitor did not induce direct infringement of a method patent merely by "carr[ying] out some steps constituting a method patent and encourag[ing] others to carry out the remaining steps"

  3. Westerngeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.

    138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018)   Cited 102 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the defendant's extraterritoriality argument because the case involved a "permissible domestic application" of the patent damages statute

  4. Cardiac Pcmk., v. Jude Medical

    576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court exceeded the scope of the mandate when it considered new invalidity and unenforceability defenses that had not been raised on appeal, where the mandate “reinstate[d] the jury verdict of validity, and remand[ed] for a new trial on infringement and reassessment of damages”

  5. Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.

    909 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial evidence the plaintiff intended to induce infringement because the plaintiff did not dispute that it knew of the patents in suit, was informed the product it manufactured, co-developed, and sold was covered by the patents, had a 50% worldwide market share, and had customers that sold televisions in the U.S.

  6. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 04-1371-LPS (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2018)   Cited 6 times

    Civil Action No. 04-1371-LPS 10-04-2018 POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Defendants. HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MEMORANDUM ORDER Power Integrations, Inc. ("Power") sued Defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation ("Fairchild") in 2004 for infringement of four Power patents. At trial in October 2006, the jury was instructed on direct

  7. Evonik Degussa GMBH v. Materia Inc.

    Civil Action No. 09-cv-636 (NLH-JS) CONSOLIDATED (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Civil Action No. 09-cv-636 (NLH-JS) CONSOLIDATED. August 24, 2011 Daniel Christopher Mulveny, Alan Richard Silverstein, Bindu Ann George Palapura, Brian R. Lemon, Claudia Schultze, Daniel J. Harbison, Eric James Evain, Jeffrey B. Bove, R. Eric Hutz, Rudolf E. Hutz, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, The Nemours Building, Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for Plaintiff Evonik Degussa GmbH. Jack B. Blumenfeld, Julia Heaney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht Tunnell, Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for Defendant Materia Inc., Third

  8. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,030 times   1045 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  9. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,070 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"