§Why CasetextPricing

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

REPLY

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,342 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

    728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 234 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims lacked an inventive concept despite identifying several specific components used in the application

  3. In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

    765 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that " jury could ... easily conclude that a reasonable investor would ... view" a struggling company's CEO's "misstatements/omissions regarding cash flow as significantly altering the ‘total mix’ of information available"

  4. Eagle v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.

    769 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that "[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the pretrial order" because "[i]t would be unfair to the defendant to permit the plaintiff to change strategies at late stage of litigation"

  5. Biomedical v. California

    505 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 36 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state did not waive sovereign immunity when it intervened in a past, related action

  6. Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc.

    C.A. No. 11-318-LPS (D. Del. Jun. 24, 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Finding a non-practicing plaintiff would be prejudiced by a stay because "the longer [defendant] is allowed to engage in allegedly infringing activity, the lower the value of the patents becomes as licensing assets"

  7. Engel v. CBS, Inc.

    886 F. Supp. 728 (C.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that defendants did not waive venue challenge where Congress amended the venue statute while the case was pending

  8. Strong v. Walgreen Co.

    CASE NO. 09cv611 WQH (WVG) (S.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)

    CASE NO. 09cv611 WQH (WVG) 05-09-2013 MATTHEW STRONG, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN CO., doing business as Walgreens; and RUDOLPH BRAGG, Trustee of the Bragg Family Trust, Dated April 22, 1982, Defendants. WILLIAM Q. HAYES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; ORDER HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following motions are also before the Court; (1) Defendants' Motion to Strike Evidence