§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

REPLY IN SUPPORT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude IN-PART THE TESTIMONY OF DR. JEFFREY CHASE 245

15 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,714 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems

    308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer

  3. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.

    279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 204 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]here an accused infringer is clearly practicing only that which was in the prior art, and nothing more, and the patentee's proffered construction reads on the accused device, meeting burden of [establishing invalidity] should not prove difficult"

  4. Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.

    242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 197 times
    Stating that the claims should not "enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has described as the invention"

  5. Kinetic v. Blue Sky

    554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that defendant's “belief that it can freely practice inventions found in the public domain” supports “a jury's finding that the intent required for induced infringement was lacking”

  6. Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    340 F. Supp. 3d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2018)   Cited 34 times
    Finding that the "plain language of the claim terms requires an 'ordering of steps' "

  7. 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.

    889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although "an accused infringer cannot defeat a claim of literal infringement or establish invalidity merely by pointing to similarities between an accused product and the prior art, . . . [a litigant may argue] that if a claim term must be broadly interpreted to read on an accused device, then this same broad construction will read on the prior art."

  8. FujiFilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC

    Case No. 12-cv-03587-WHO (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015)   Cited 17 times
    Striking portions of expert report that were "replete with observations and inferences that jurors are perfectly capable of making for themselves without [expert] assistance," even where such sections were "technical in nature"

  9. EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 13-1985-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Ruling that the defendant's experts "are not precluded from making any reference whatsoever to patent specifications and commercial embodiments"

  10. Alloc, Inc. v. Norman D. Lifton Co.

    653 F. Supp. 2d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 13 times

    No. 03 Civ. 4419 (PAC). September 8, 2009. Charles Bart Cummings, Baker McKenzie LLP, NY, NY, Daniel J. O'Connor, David I. Roche, Jasmine C. AbdelKhalik, Shima S. Roy Baker McKenzie, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs. Anthony Andrew Pastor, William James McCabe, Ropes Gray, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants. OPINION ORDER PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge. Plaintiff's Alloc, Inc., Berry Finance, N.V., and Välinge Innovation AB (collectively "Alloc") hold three related patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,516,579 (the

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,938 times   946 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"