Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc.
682 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 107 timesFinding lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel had "the requisite ability and experience."
Adobe Systems Inc. v. Wowza Media Systems, LLC
72 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2014) Cited 10 timesFinding that res judicata did not bar a claim against a new product where there had been no prior non-infringement ruling
Glitsch, Inc. v. Koch Engineering Co. Inc.
216 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 14 timesHolding that a request for declaratory relief was barred by the collateral attack doctrine when the plaintiff had access to the appellate process
Vehicle Interface Techs., LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC
Civil Action No. 14-339-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 6, 2014)Civil Action No. 14-339-RGA 08-06-2014 VEHICLE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. Brian E. Farnan, Esq., Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Faman, Esq., Faman LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alexander C.D. Giza, Esq., Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. John W. Shaw, Esq., Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esq., Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew J. Moore, Esq., Latham & Watkins, LLP, Washington
Ho Keung Tse v. Apple, Inc.
Case No: C 12-02653 SBA (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013)Case No: C 12-02653 SBA 02-05-2013 HO KEUNG TSE, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., et al., Defendant. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG ORDER Docket 76 Ho Keung Tse ("Plaintiff") brings this patent infringement action against Apple, Inc. ("Apple" or "Defendant") alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,797 (the " 797 patent"). The parties are presently before the Court on Apple's "Motion to Consolidate Related Cases and Stay." Dkt. 76. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. 78. Having read and considered the papers
Bowman v. CMG Mortgage Inc.
No. C 07-03140 SI (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2008)No. C 07-03140 SI. June 5, 2008 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTER-CLAIM SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge Both sides in this case have filed motions to amend their pleadings, scheduled for hearing on June 6, 2008. Plaintiffs seek to file a Second Amended Complaint, adding claims and parties; and defendants seek to file an amended answer and new counter-claims. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,805 times 922 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cited 28,274 times 26 Legal AnalysesHolding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,241 times 24 Legal AnalysesGranting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,055 times 447 Legal AnalysesHolding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Cited 992 times 12 Legal AnalysesGoverning corporate disclosure statements