13 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 204,671 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is 'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 189,156 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there cannot be a genuine issue of material fact where the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an essential element
  3. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.

    572 U.S. 915 (2014)   Cited 168 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inducement liability may arise "if, but only if, [there is] . . . direct infringement"
  4. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 471 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"
  5. Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.

    550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 185 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party that sells or offers to sell software containing instructions to perform the patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271
  6. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.

    797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 106 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding an entity is liable for others' performance of method steps where that entity directs or controls others' performance or where the actors form a joint enterprise
  7. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp

    877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing Akamai Techs., 797 F.3d at 1025
  8. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.

    244 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that jury's finding of infringement of the '926 Patent was supported by substantial evidence
  9. Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney Co.

    293 F. Supp. 3d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    Case No. 17–cv–04006–JST Case No. 17–cv–04191–JST Case No. 17–cv–04192–JST 02-21-2018 REARDEN LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Rearden LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, et al., Defendants. Rearden LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, et al., Defendants. Rio Shaye Pierce, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, Mark S. Carlson, Steve W. Berman, Pro Hac Vice, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle

  10. Voit Techs., LLC v. Drucker Labs, L.P.

    Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00695 (E.D. Tex. May. 4, 2017)

    Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00695 05-04-2017 VOIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DRUCKER LABS, L.P. Judge Mazzant Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Drucker Labs, L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #15). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies the motion. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2016, Voit Technologies, LLC ("Voit") filed its complaint against Drucker Labs, L.P. ("Drucker"), alleging direct patent infringement of U.S. Patent

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 278,607 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 15,135 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that service by mail is complete when the document is mailed
  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 5,259 times   949 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"