§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. David Yurkerwich and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 252

10 Cited authorities

  1. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc.

    251 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 695 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appearance of a pool hall can be trade dress, and noting that functionality, secondary meaning, and likelihood of confusion are issues of fact

  2. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.

    802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 363 times
    Holding that the district court did not err by declining to construe the term "[b]eing provided to"

  3. Fortune Dynamic v. Victoria's Secret

    618 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 351 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a material question of fact existed regarding defendant's good faith when the plaintiff introduced evidence that the defendant carelessly failed to investigate the trademark at issue, along with expert testimony that a trademark search would have been standard practice in the relevant industry

  4. Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.

    694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 326 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding the settlement license agreement in question had "very little relation to demonstrated economic demand for the patented technology, and its probative value is greatly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury"; therefore, concluding the district court had abused its discretion in admitting the settlement agreement into evidence

  5. Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A

    429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that "this court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings under the law of the regional circuit"

  6. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.

    807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 72 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the jury was properly told that it may consider any foreign sales that resulted from infringing use in the United States in order to value that use

  7. Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.

    887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a willfulness finding was not precluded by the PTO's rejection of all of the claims asserted in the suit in a non-final office action, where the claims were later confirmed

  8. TV Interactive Data Corporation v. Sony Corporation

    929 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 21 times
    Finding that challenge to use of ex-post evidence in royalty calculation goes to weight and not admissibility

  9. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

    Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014)   Cited 6 times

    Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK 02-25-2014 APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants and Counterclaimants. LUCY H. KOH ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EXPERT OPINIONS PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION This Order addresses the parties' motions

  10. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

    900 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Nev. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    No. 2:07–cv–00331–PMP–PAL. 2012-10-25 HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC. and Pulse Electronics Corporation, Defendants. Craig E. Countryman, Juanita R. Brooks, Lara S. Garner, Fish & RichardsonP.C., San Diego, CA, John C. Adkisson, Michael J. Kane, William R. Woodford, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN, Lori N. Brown, Hymson Goldstein & Pantiliat, PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff. Brian R. Harrow, David E. Sipiora, Kristopher L. Reed, Matthew Holohan, Jordan B