21 Cited authorities

Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.
694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 307 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not err in concluding that terms had plain meanings that did not require construction and in rejecting one party's proposed construction, which erroneously read limitations into the claims
Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece
141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 351 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that liability for trademark infringement requires a likelihood of confusions between the marks
Webb v. Ada County
285 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 229 times
Holding the plaintiff's "attorney's fees incurred for postjudgment enforcement of the district court's orders and the consent decree were compensable under the PLRA"
Amado v. Microsoft
517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 159 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court should consider the parties' new economic circumstances when calculating damages for patent infringement taking place during a stay of an injunction
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.
504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 123 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court did not violate patent owner’s right to a jury trial by calculating an "ongoing royalty rate" for patent infringement in a bench trial
Telcordia Tech. v. Cisco Systems
612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 89 times
Holding that “controller” was sufficient disclosure because “[t]he record shows that an ordinary artisan would have recognized the controller as an electronic device with a known structure”
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.
646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 78 times 5 Legal Analyses
Refusing to allow “vagueness” challenge to injunction's validity during contempt proceeding
Plotkin v. Pacific Tel. and Tel. Co.
688 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 145 times
Holding that an interlocutory appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over other aspects of the case, regardless of the appeal's merit
U.S. v. Pitner
307 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 52 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Pitner, a case cited by both parties here, the Ninth Circuit did not explicitly mention, unlike in Mariscal and Reese, the trial court's duty to determine if the proffered testimony would be favorable to the movant.
Fractus v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
876 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Tex. 2012) Cited 24 times
Holding that defendant waived any indefiniteness argument where it "failed to present any explicit indefiniteness evidence at trial" and did not "make a single reference to indefiniteness during trial;" stating that "[a]llowing [defendant] to revive its [indefiniteness] defense post-trial deprives [plaintiff] of any opportunity to substantively respond with its own testimony or evidence"
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,499 times 66 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions
28 U.S.C. § 1292 Cited 22,319 times 193 Legal Analyses
Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders
Rule 58 - Entering Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 Cited 18,410 times 9 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that, after a jury verdict, the Court must enter judgment "in a separate document"
Section 283 - Injunction
35 U.S.C. § 283 Cited 801 times 19 Legal Analyses
Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement

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

21 Cited authorities

Holding that the district court did not err in concluding that terms had plain meanings that did not require construction and in rejecting one party's proposed construction, which erroneously read limitations into the claims

Holding that liability for trademark infringement requires a likelihood of confusions between the marks

Holding the plaintiff's "attorney's fees incurred for postjudgment enforcement of the district court's orders and the consent decree were compensable under the PLRA"

Holding that a court should consider the parties' new economic circumstances when calculating damages for patent infringement taking place during a stay of an injunction

Holding that the court did not violate patent owner’s right to a jury trial by calculating an "ongoing royalty rate" for patent infringement in a bench trial

Holding that “controller” was sufficient disclosure because “[t]he record shows that an ordinary artisan would have recognized the controller as an electronic device with a known structure”

Refusing to allow “vagueness” challenge to injunction's validity during contempt proceeding

Holding that an interlocutory appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over other aspects of the case, regardless of the appeal's merit

In Pitner, a case cited by both parties here, the Ninth Circuit did not explicitly mention, unlike in Mariscal and Reese, the trial court's duty to determine if the proffered testimony would be favorable to the movant.

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

Recognizing that, after a jury verdict, the Court must enter judgment "in a separate document"

Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement