§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement

23 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,930 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 112,923 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  3. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

    136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)   Cited 492 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "

  4. SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.

    775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 976 times
    Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims

  5. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm

    543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 202 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the specification as a whole may serve to limit the claims by repeatedly characterizing the invention in a specific manner

  6. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America

    975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that " claim of trade dress infringement fails if secondary meaning did not exist before the infringement began" and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff

  7. Stickle v. Heublein, Inc.

    716 F.2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 157 times
    Holding that “an award of attorney fees for the breach of warranty claim is not authorized under § 285”

  8. Wis. Alumni Research Found. v. Apple Inc.

    905 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a narrow construction where a term was used consistently throughout the specification and Apple pointed to no counter-examples justifying a broader construction

  9. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.

    234 F. Supp. 3d 601 (D. Del. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that "[n]o reasonable jury could find willful infringement based on" evidence that the defendant "has continued to update, produce, and sell" the infringing product after the suit was filed

  10. Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    Case No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB (E.D. Tex. May. 18, 2017)   Cited 13 times
    Granting Rule 50 motion for JMOL of no willfulness where plaintiff presented only circumstantial evidence

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,071 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,569 times   251 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  13. Section 284 - Damages

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