§Why CasetextPricing

NXP B.V. v. BlackBerry Limited et al

MOTION for a New Trial and renewed judgment as a matter of law regarding the '455 patent

47 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,816 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. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,136 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  3. Mine Workers v. Pennington

    381 U.S. 657 (1965)   Cited 1,627 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that immunity extends to petitioning conduct “either standing alone or as part of a broader scheme”

  4. Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors

    365 U.S. 127 (1961)   Cited 1,890 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that antitrust laws do not apply to businesses combining to lobby the government, even where such conduct has an anticompetitive purpose and an anticompetitive effect, because the alternative "would raise important constitutional questions" under the First Amendment

  5. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,217 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  6. Morgan v. Family Dollar

    551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 914 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sufficient evidence supported jury's determination that Family Dollar Store Managers were nonexempt employees

  7. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 416 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  8. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 278 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  9. Stollings v. Ryobi Techs., Inc.

    725 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 214 times
    Holding that questions as to the accuracy of one of the expert's factual assumptions were grounds for cross- examination, not exclusion of the expert's opinion

  10. United States Steel, LLC v. Tieco, Inc.

    261 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 261 times
    Holding that substantial prejudice was shown where the appellees had relied on erroneously admitted evidence "throughout the trial" and "notably" during closing arguments

  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. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,942 times   958 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Rule 61 - Harmless Error

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 61   Cited 2,570 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a judgment will not be set aside for harmless error