§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 and Memorandum in Support

28 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,883 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 112,902 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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,353 times   506 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  4. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical

    520 U.S. 17 (1997)   Cited 1,694 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

  5. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

    776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 589 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to the "abstract idea of 1

  6. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 502 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions" are directed to an abstract idea

  7. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

    772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 485 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea

  8. SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.

    775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 975 times
    Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims

  9. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 357 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

  10. Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries

    126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 484 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a claim recites a function, but goes on to elaborate sufficient structure, the claim is not in means-plus-function format

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 327,983 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,387 times   2186 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."