14 Citing briefs
Epistar Corporation v. Philips Lumileds Lighting Company, LLC
MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings With Respect To Epistar Corporation's First, Third, And Fourth Claims Regarding Unfair Competition And Tortious Interference
Filed June 5, 2008
70 Rothman, 49 Cal. App. 4th at 1146. 71 See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d), 19 C.F.R. § 12.39(b)(2).
In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation
MOTION for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Under 35 U.S.C. Section 271
Filed July 5, 2005
See id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)). The court’s analysis of the phrase “product which is made by a process,” along with its extensive review of the legislative history, led the Federal Circuit to conclude: “that Congress was concerned solely with physical goods that had undergone manufacture.”
IPtronics Inc. et al v. Avago Technologies U.S., Inc. et al
MOTION to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
Filed March 23, 2015
65713 (Oct. 30, 2012)). Pursuant to its powers under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b), the ITC reviewed the information Avago had presented to it, determined that it was sufficient to warrant the institution of an investigation, and instituted an investigation. See id.
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. GSI Technology, Inc.
MOTION to Stay; Renewed Motion for Partial Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
Filed August 21, 2014
I. In the ITC Action, which Cypress filed on June 10, 2011, Cypress alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) asserting that certain GSI SRAMs and products containing the same infringed the ’477, ’134 patent and ’805 patents and United States Patent No. 6,262,937 (the “’937 patent”). Id.
Tate & Lyle Technology Limited et al v. AIDP Inc et al
MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of Mtn. to Stay
Filed May 31, 2007
(Dkt #1, ¶¶ 45-46, 51-52.) On April 6, 2007, Tate & Lyle filed a complaint with the ITC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Section 337”), 19 U.S.C. § 1337. (Brinkmann Decl., Ex. A.)2 Tate & Lyle’s ITC complaint alleges patent infringement against various respondents, including U.S. Niutang and Changzhou Niutang.
Parkervision, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al
REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for leave to file Third Amended Complaint
Filed January 7, 2019
Instead, the ITC may only order injunctive relief, typically in the form of exclusion orders that prohibit parties from importing infringing products into the United States. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d) & (f). Thus, any exclusion order that ParkerVision obtained in the ITC against Apple, LG, and Samsung—which, together, represent nearly the entire United States market of smart phones and tablets incorporating the accused Qualcomm chips— would have provided ParkerVision with the remedy it was seeking, without any need to allege or prove that Qualcomm indirectly infringed the ’528 Patent.
Nvidia Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
MOTION to Stay
Filed October 22, 2014
D.I. 1. On the same day, Nvidia filed a complaint with the ITC requesting an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The ITC complaint alleges infringement of the Asserted Patents by Defendants.
Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc et al
RESPONSE to 118 MOTION to Stay the Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexaminations
Filed September 21, 2012
Motion to Stay at 3. Case 1:06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT Document 127 Filed 09/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16 4 violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Crocs then waited through both the required Presidential Review period following the ITC decision and the time period during which a party could appeal the determination following the review period, so that the matter would be “final” for purposes of lifting the mandatory stay of this matter.
Apple, Inc v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. et al
RESPONSE
Filed April 14, 2011
/ / / / / / Case4:11-cv-00210-CW Document21 Filed04/14/11 Page2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 2 - DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAYCase No. 5:11-cv-00210-CW II. BACKGROUND On May 28, 2010, S3G filed a verified complaint against Apple in the U.S. International Trade Commission, seeking relief under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”). On July 1, 2010, the Commission published a Notice instituting Investigation No. 337-TA-724, which it entitled “Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software” (the “724 Investigation”).
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd et al v. General Electric Company
MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support of 14 MOTION to Dismiss Case General Electric Company's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Stay in Favor of Ongoing Proceedings Adjudicating the Patents at Issue General Electri Company's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Stay in Favor of Ongoing Proceedings Adjudicating the Patents at Issue
Filed June 25, 2010
& Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965)............................................................................................2, 13 FEDERAL STATUTES Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2...........................................................2, 16, 20 Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)............................................................16 Section 377 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 ...... ..............................................................6 35 U.S.C. § 282 ....................................................................................................................8 FEDERAL RULES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)....................................................................4, 8, 13, 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .....................................................................1, 6, 7 Case 5:10-cv-05087-HFB Document 15 Filed 06/25/10 Page 6 of 30 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and this Court’s inherent authority to control its docket, General Electric Company (“GE”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (colle tively, “Mitsubishi”) or, alternatively, to stay this case in favor of ongoing proceedings adjudicating the patents