§Why CasetextPricing

Parkervision, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al

MOTION for summary judgment precluding Parkervision from obtaining a double recovery, or in the alternative, motion to sever and stay

33 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,328 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Clinton v. Jones

    520 U.S. 681 (1997)   Cited 2,694 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding in Section 1983 action no absolute immunity for damages arising from "unofficial conduct"

  3. Mize v. Jefferson City Board of Education

    93 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,307 times
    Holding court need not withhold summary judgment if nonmovant's inferences "implausible"

  4. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

    553 U.S. 617 (2008)   Cited 164 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a licensee's sale of component computer parts that substantially embodied method patents held by the patentee was "authorized" by the patentee and exhausted the patentee's patents

  5. Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of Georgia

    263 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 557 times
    Holding that "a plaintiff cannot serve as a class representative if she lacks standing to advance the class's claim"

  6. Kesinger ex Rel. Estate v. Herrington

    381 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 436 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "mere scintilla" of evidence is insufficient

  7. Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp.

    150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 195 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding award of damages for breach of contract was properly based on licensing fee established by expert testimony

  8. In re Nintendo of Am., Inc.

    756 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 77 times
    Finding that the customer-suit exception applies despite the manufacturer and customers being sued in the same single complaint

  9. Transcore v. Electronic Transaction

    563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 88 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "our analysis begins with the premise that one cannot convey what one does not own," but that "the pertinent question [in these contexts] is ... what the [agreement] authorizes."

  10. Spread Spectrum Screening Llc v. Eastman Kodak Co.

    657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that the customer-suit exception is applicable only where resolution of the manufacturer's suit will resolve the "major issues" in the customer suits

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,775 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,244 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  13. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,073 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  14. Section 1659 - Stay of certain actions pending disposition of related proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission

    28 U.S.C. § 1659   Cited 121 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Distinguishing between civil actions and proceedings before the International Trade Commission, and permitting stay of civil action in favor of overlapping ITC proceedings in certain circumstances