24 Cited authorities

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC
784 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 156 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant who "provided machinery or goods that facilitated infringement" can be contributorily liable
National Presto Industries v. West Bend Co.
76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 239 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence based on a review of the entirety of the record
Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd.
850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 277 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that intent to induce infringement may be proven by circumstantial evidence
Paper Converting Machine v. Magna-Graphics
745 F.2d 11 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 145 times
Holding that direct infringement occurs when a party "makes an 'operable assembly' of the components of the patented invention"
Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., Inc.
351 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 57 times
Holding that "prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence"
Enron Corp. Savings Plan v. Hewitt Associates, L.L.C.
258 F.R.D. 149 (S.D. Tex. 2009) Cited 47 times
Finding that boilerplate objections fail "to meet the specificity requirements" of Rule 34 or Rule 26
Oticon, Inc. v. Sebotek Hearing Systems, Llc.
865 F. Supp. 2d 501 (D.N.J. 2011) Cited 34 times
Finding insufficient minimum contacts where the defendant targeted the national market but only five to nine sales of the product occurred in the forum state
Lee Valley Tools, Ltd. v. Industrial Blade Co.
288 F.R.D. 254 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) Cited 30 times
Finding that an "expert opinion is not per se unreliable" even if it "relies upon some unverified or inaccurate information provided by the expert's client"
In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, in
172 F.R.D. 295 (N.D. Ill. 1997) Cited 52 times
Concluding the "use of the Convention . . . to be an unnecessary, complicated, time consuming, and expensive means of discovery, thus thwarting the interests of our court system"
Hager v. Graham
267 F.R.D. 486 (N.D.W. Va. 2010) Cited 31 times
Granting a motion to compel requesting "the complete investigative files and claims files of Defendant in connection with the underlying claims by Plaintiffs" and finding that the request did not fail for lack of particularity because it listed specific sources where relevant documents could be located

Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant who "provided machinery or goods that facilitated infringement" can be contributorily liable

Holding that a jury verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence based on a review of the entirety of the record

Holding that intent to induce infringement may be proven by circumstantial evidence

Holding that direct infringement occurs when a party "makes an 'operable assembly' of the components of the patented invention"

Holding that "prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence"

Finding that boilerplate objections fail "to meet the specificity requirements" of Rule 34 or Rule 26

Finding insufficient minimum contacts where the defendant targeted the national market but only five to nine sales of the product occurred in the forum state

Finding that an "expert opinion is not per se unreliable" even if it "relies upon some unverified or inaccurate information provided by the expert's client"

Concluding the "use of the Convention . . . to be an unnecessary, complicated, time consuming, and expensive means of discovery, thus thwarting the interests of our court system"