§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to of No Invalidity Based on the Rejaie Reference 262

8 Cited authorities

  1. O2 Micro Intern. v. Monolithic Power Sys

    467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 605 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that diligence must be considered in determining whether good cause exists to amend infringement contentions

  2. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 265 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an academic paper distributed among a limited set of professional colleagues is not a prior art publication

  3. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc.

    Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal. May. 24, 2016)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting an approach “allowing previously undisclosed references to be used as background material, so long as they are not asserted as invalidating prior art references”

  4. Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.

    271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    CIVIL CASE NO. 97-40370 July 9, 2003 John E. Nemazi, Thomas A. Lewry, Ernie L. Brooks, Robert C.J. Tuttle, Brooks Kushman, Southfield, MI, for plaintiff. Dennis J. Levasseur, Detroit, MI, Martin C. Fliesler, Fliesler, Dubb, Burt Magen, Fleisler, Dubb, San Francisco, CA, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PAUL GADOLA, District Judge Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity; (2) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that the asserted

  5. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,817 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  6. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,004 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,054 times   445 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"