§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to NO ANTICIPATION BASED ON THE FOOTPRINT CDN 246

13 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Koito Manufacturing Co., v. Turn-Key-Tech

    381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 138 times
    Holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it "failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims"

  3. B. B. Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp

    249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 147 times
    Holding district court did not err by declining to construe the term "melting" as it did "not appear to have required construction, or to depart from its ordinary meaning"

  4. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc.

    522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether prior art was in public use on basis of witness testimony, documentary evidence, patentee's admissions

  5. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 88 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description

  6. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc.

    935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 148 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a party who chooses not to cross-examine a witness on an issue cannot later "recoup for its failed litigation strategy"

  7. TI Group Automotive Systems (North America), Inc. v. VDO North America, L.L.C.

    375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that the term "pumping means" in a patent directed to fuel pump assembly technology was not a means-plus-function limitation as the limitation recited not only a pumping means, but its structure, location, and operation

  8. Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson

    725 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded expert testimony that was not included in the expert report because "[a]n expert witness may not testify to subject matter beyond the scope of the witness's expert report unless the failure to include that information in the report was substantially justified or harmless."

  9. 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."

  10. Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc.

    No. C 12-1971 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)   Cited 16 times
    Excluding expert report but allowing expert "to submit a revised damages report curing [] the problems identified in [the court's] order"

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,784 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,503 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"