§Why CasetextPricing

Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA Inc.

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Non-Infringement and Damages PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO HUAWEIS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT AND DAMAGES

47 Cited authorities

  1. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting

    368 U.S. 464 (1962)   Cited 2,859 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding agent potentially liable where he knew of the "obvious purpose and necessary effect" to eliminate independent stations and "had a personal stake in the outcome"

  2. Brewster v. Dretke

    587 F.3d 764 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,103 times
    Holding that a pro se litigant should be offered an opportunity to amend his complaint before it is dismissed, unless he has already pleaded his "best case"

  3. Galindo v. Precision American Corp.

    754 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1985)   Cited 1,388 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence

  4. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

    418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 458 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada

  5. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.

    773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 312 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a general verdict will not be set aside if there is sufficient evidence to support any of the alternative factual theories so long as there is no dispute over the legal propriety of the jury instruction

  6. Adams v. Pan American World Airways

    485 U.S. 961 (1988)   Cited 215 times
    Requiring presence of every claim element, literally or by an equivalent

  7. Laborers' Int'l Union v. Foster Wheeler Energy

    26 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 513 times
    Holding issues not raised in opening brief on appeal are waived

  8. Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding

    581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 293 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding no contributory infringement as a matter of law because "the accused devices are indisputably capable of non-infringing use" and the patent owner could not show the use was insubstantial

  9. U.S. v. McIver

    470 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 301 times
    Finding that good faith is not a defense to a claim of medical malpractice

  10. Ingle ex Rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton

    439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 302 times
    Holding grant of summary judgment on excessive force claim premature where district court has not considered videotape evidence

  11. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,040 times   1050 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,938 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue

    Fed. R. Evid. 704   Cited 3,025 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."