§Why CasetextPricing

Broadcom Corporation v. Emulex Corporation

REPLY in support of Renewed MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Non-Infringement of the '150 Patent 948

17 Cited authorities

  1. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.

    449 U.S. 33 (1980)   Cited 1,397 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such recovery procedures for "erroneously or illegally assessed" taxes provide due process

  2. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.

    481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 1,143 times
    Holding that the “client or customer” limitation of § 12182(b) does not apply to § 12182 or to § 12182(b)

  3. Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.

    239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 520 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"

  4. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 301 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of royalty rates from licenses without a relationship to the claimed invention could not form the basis of a reasonable royalty calculation

  5. Freund v. Nycomed Amersham

    347 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 327 times
    Holding that federal law governs the standard of review in diversity cases

  6. Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.

    141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 340 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hether conduct in the prosecution of a patent is sufficient to strip a patentee of its immunity from the antitrust laws" implicates the Federal Circuit's "exclusive jurisdiction" and, accordingly, should be decided under the law of that circuit

  7. Colgrove v. Battin

    413 U.S. 149 (1973)   Cited 191 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding local federal rule for six-person jury trial in civil case comports with Seventh Amendment

  8. Johnson v. New York, N. H. H.R. Co.

    344 U.S. 48 (1952)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that in the absence of a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, an appellate court cannot enter such judgment

  9. Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

    399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 88 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a single prior use invalidates both system and method claims

  10. Hannex Corp. v. GMI, Inc.

    140 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that participating in a knowing breach of fiduciary duty can constitute wrongful means

  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,633 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"

  12. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,642 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  13. Rule 83 - Rules by District Courts; Judge's Directives

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 83   Cited 1,027 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to District Court to adopt local rules