§Why CasetextPricing

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Based Upon Patent Exhaustion

29 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 239,217 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Taylor v. List

    880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 9,168 times
    Holding that no § 1983 liability exists absent personal participation

  3. T.W. Elec. Service v. Pacific Elec. Contr

    809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 10,018 times
    Holding that "[i]nferences must ... be drawn in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" so long as "it is ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ and otherwise permissible under the governing substantive law"

  4. Trevino v. Gates

    99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,787 times
    Holding that a child who filed an action seeking punitive damages as the result of the killing of her father was in privity with her grandmother who earlier sued concerning the same events, because the grandmother had a "tremendous incentive" to recover punitive damages

  5. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

    553 U.S. 617 (2008)   Cited 165 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a licensee's sale of component computer parts that substantially embodied method patents held by the patentee was "authorized" by the patentee and exhausted the patentee's patents

  6. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 519 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"

  7. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.

    365 U.S. 336 (1961)   Cited 365 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that replacement of essential element of invention is not an infringing reconstruction of entire invention

  8. Crystal Semicond. v. Tritech Microelec

    246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "patentee may obtain lost profit damages for that portion of the infringer's sales for which the patentee can demonstrate 'but for' causation and reasonable royalties for any remaining infringing [sales]"; further holding patentee may also recover for "[r]eduction of [its] prices, and consequent loss of profits, enforced by infringing competition"

  9. Yamaha Corp. of America v. U.S.

    961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 304 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issue preclusion would be unfair if applied "when the losing party clearly lacked any incentive to litigate the point in the first trial"

  10. U.S. v. Masonite Corp.

    316 U.S. 265 (1942)   Cited 248 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a price-fixing agreement among patentees and their licensees per se illegal

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,113 times   1078 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"