§Why CasetextPricing

Dynamic Applet Technologies, LLC v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re SEALED MOTION Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Infringement Contentions

7 Cited authorities

  1. Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.

    797 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that where licensor transferred all substantial rights to licensee and retained no substantial rights for itself, licensee alone has standing to sue

  2. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.

    424 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Tex. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Denying amendment: "DirecTV did not adequately explain how the court's definition of any of the terms in dispute was so surprising, or differed so greatly from the proposals made by the parties, that it justifies admission of new prior art references two weeks before Finisar's deadline to submit rebuttal expert reports."

  3. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas America Inc.

    479 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that one of the main purposes of this district's Local Patent Rules is to "speed up the litigation process and make it less expensive."

  4. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

    704 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that the term “generated by the server” could not cover a situation where the function was “finalized at the client”

  5. Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp.

    Case No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB LEAD CASE (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Case No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB LEAD CASE 04-06-2018 SYCAMORE IP HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., et al., Defendants. WILLIAM C. BRYSON UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Sycamore's Motion for a Declaration that Sycamore May Amend Its Infringement Contentions, Dkt. No. 552, and Sycamore's Opposed Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Expert Report Relating to Sycamore's Amended Infringement Contentions, Dkt. No. 556. The motions are DENIED. BACKGROUND On

  6. ALEXSAM, INC. v. IDT CORPORATION

    CASE NO. 2:07-CV-420-CE (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2011)   Cited 7 times

    CASE NO. 2:07-CV-420-CE. January 12, 2011 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV, Magistrate Judge I. Introduction Now before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to amend its infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 152), Plaintiff's supplemental motion to amend its infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 165), Defendant's motion for leave to amend its invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 147) and Defendant's motion to supplement its invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 174), and the parties' joint motion

  7. SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-158-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Interpreting an identical local rule