§Why CasetextPricing

WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law [RENEWED] OF NO INVALIDITY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON INVALIDITY

25 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,065 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,517 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  3. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,145 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  4. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

    632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 410 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue

  5. Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

    694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 305 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

  6. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 372 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

  7. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 248 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that inventor's unwitnessed notebook was not adequate corroborating evidence of an earlier invention date

  8. Minnesota Min. Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.

    303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 283 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supplying potentially infringing products along with instructions for infringing use was sufficient to infer intent

  9. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International

    316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 236 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the term "vivid color appearance" not indefinite when the specification presented a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples, which determined whether or not they had a "vivid colored appearance"

  10. Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co.

    773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985)   Cited 373 times
    Finding an abuse of discretion only if "the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course."

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,325 times   65 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 13,587 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,891 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents