Search for: "Mediafire, LLC"
Results 1 - 20 of 21
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
10 Apr 7:55 am
Yesterday at noon, with Dave Barshay of Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, LLC, sitting in his Jamaica, Queens
offices, and I sitting in my Buffalo, New York offices, 127 time- and effort-vested members of the New York no-fault insurance and legal community participated in an open webinar
discussion of the background, holding and impact of the New York Court of Appeals' then one-week-old decision in LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. ...
15 Aug, 2008 1:36 pm
Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC, No. 9:08-cv-80013-KAM, August 12, 2008 Global
Patent Holdings (GPH) sued Panthers for infringing U.S. Patent Number 5,253,341, known as the "Remote Query Communication System" patent (also known as the "JPEG patent"). In its
complaint, GPH alleged that infringement takes place through the joint action of both Defendant and the website user, because Defendant's website "controls and directs the performance
of each of the method steps of claim 17 ...
11 Apr, 2007 1:11 am
In the case of Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation, the E.D. Texas found that Toyota infringed Paice's patent. Since Ebay, permanent
injunctions are no longer granted as a matter of course, and the district courts must use the four-factor test to determine a proper equitable remedy. In Paice, the district court
decided that, since Paice did not produce products that competed with Toyota, an injunction was not an appropriate remedy. Instead, the court ordered that each future sale of a subject
...
10 Oct, 2007 6:29 am
Dickson Industries, Inc. v. Patent Enforcement Team LLC - W.D. Okla. (CIV-02-0467-HE) The five-year case involved rumble strip grinding
machines, which etch rough lines onto highway shoulders to warn drivers when they drift out of the driving lanes. Patent Enforcement Team (PET) obtained a patent claiming to cover the
grinding machines Dickson manufactured, and proceeded to send demand letters to Dickson, Dickson's customers, and potential customers. Soon thereafter, Dickson's rumble strip ...
31 Oct, 2007 6:34 am
... or not, PLI will be holding a telephone/webcast briefing on Friday, November 2, 2007 on the case. For more details, click here (link). Since last week, 4 more amicus brief were
added to the mix: - Joint filing by Hexas LLC, The Roskamp Institute, Tikvah Therapeutics, Inc. - (link) - Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - (link)
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - (link) - Biotechnology Industry Organization - (link) Of course, the PTO opposed all of the amicus briefs (refering to ...
15 Sep, 2008 12:43 pm
Earlier in the year, the CAFC issued its opinion in Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the
court stated "[w]e note that the patent drafter is in tlle best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that
applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation." Taking this ...
2 Feb 8:12 am
... case for the controversy regarding [plaintiff's] business conduct. [Plaintiff], therefore, violated the first to file rule when it amended its complaint in this action to add counts
already asserted in the Missouri case." - Catalina Marketing Corporation v. LDM Group, LLC, 2-07-cv-00477 (TXED January 29, 2009, Order) See
Also: The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, "The Eastern District Of Texas - No Longer The Venue Of Choice?" (link) - discussion of TS Tech, including interview withe TS Tech's ...
24 Feb 10:24 am
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Dice Electronics, LLC, 9-08-cv-00163 (TXED February 20, 2009, Order).
Plaintiff Affinity filed suit against ... files a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent with the PTO on behalf of Dice Electronics, LLC. Dec. 9, 2008: The PTO grants the request and orders reexamination of all ... reexamination. All are waiting to let [reexamination counsel], on behalf of
Defendant Dice Electronics, LLC, take a shot at defeating Affinity Labs. Of course, if things do not go ...
28 Apr, 2008 12:31 pm
Global Patent Holdings LLC v. Green Bay Packers (00-C-4623), April 23, 2008 Back in July of 2000, Global Patent Holdings (GPH) (formerly
Techsearch LLC) filed suit against numerous defendants alleging infringement of U.S. patent No. 5,253,341, which claimed an improved method and
apparatus for downloading compressed audio and visual data as well as other graphical information from a remote server to an end user station for the purpose of decompressing and
displaying the data. Subsequently, a ...
9 Dec, 2008 10:23 am
Shire LLC v. Sandoz, 07-CV-00197-PAB, December 5, 2008 (D. Co.) The district court issued an Order and Memorandum construing the claims in the
patents at issue. In the Order, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of ... construction "was essential to a final judgment on the question of the patents' infringement"), and Graco
Children's Prods., Inc. v. Regalo Int'l, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 2d 660, 663 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (holding that, "despite a previous court having held a
hearing on the claim construction ...
22 Apr 6:54 am
Field Logic Archery, LLC v. G5 Outdoors, LLC, No. 06-1724 (D. Min., April 20, 2009) From Magistrate
Judge Noel's report and recommendation: The above referenced case was filed on May 9, 2006. After it had been pending for over a year, the parties stipulated to a stay pending the
resolution of a "Reissue Application," that had been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in June of 2007. It now appears that the USPTO did nothing with the
Reissue Application for nearly a ...
18 Jul, 2007 5:49 am
... court cases which held that confirming abandonment is a deliberate act, which negates the possibility of reviving "unintentionally" abandoned applications without a satisfactory
explanation: Lawman Armor Corp. v. Simon, 2005 WL 1176973 (E.D. Mich. 2005) Field Hybrids, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2005 WL 189710 (D. Minn.
2005) Also, it is interesting that the district court did not consider remanding the case to the PTO for further findings. Lee Thomason from the ISinIP Blog makes the following ...
15 Aug, 2007 6:12 am
AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC, (6:05-cv-424), August 14, 2007 AdvanceMe filed suit against multiple defendants, including RapidPay, alleging
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,941,281 ("the '281 patent"). Claim 1 from the '281 patent reads as follows: 1. A method for automated payment, comprising: at a merchant, accepting a
customer identifier as payment from the customer and electronically forwarding information related to the payment to a computerized merchant processor; at the computerized ...
15 Aug, 2007 5:49 pm
Thanks to "Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog" for pointing out AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC, (6:05-cv-424, ED Tex.), August 14, 2007 where,
although the patent was held to be invalid, the court held that both Reach and MMT directly infringe the asserted claims of the '281 patent because all of the elements of the patent
claims are performed either by Reach or MMT, the merchants that enter into contracts with Reach or MMT, the merchant processors that enter into contracts with Reach or MMT, or agents
...
14 Sep, 2007 7:18 am
Defendants Victoria's Secret Stores LLC, Nordstrom Inc., Gap Inc. and The Neiman Marcus Group Inc. were recently sued over a patent related to
a prosthesis for women's bras. During the course of prosecution, the patent was abandoned for failure to timely file a response. Almost 5 years after abandonment, the patent was
revived, issued, and asserted against the defendants. In light of the delay and surrounding circumstances, the defendants cried "j'accuse!" and have asked for summary judgment, ...
7 Feb, 2008 7:14 am
Applied Interact LLC v. Continental Airlines, Inc., Civil Case No. 2:07cv341 (E.D. Va., January 17, 2008) Applied Interact ("AI") filed a
complaint against Continental and MN Airlines alleging that they infringed 5 patents "by [their] unlicensed use of printing boarding passes over the Internet," and infringing another
patent "by [their] unlicensed use of sweepstakes conducted over the Internet." In the Answer, the defendants pled an affirmative defense alleging inequitable conduct: The [five (5 ...
5 Mar, 2008 12:18 am
Taurus IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Western District of Wisconsin, Case 3:07-cv-481, February 4, 2008 Taurus launched a patent infringement
suit against 3 car companies, alleging infringement of their patent relating to a computer system for managing sales information. The complaint alleged that the defendants were
infringing the patent by [M]aking, using, offering products for sale, and/or selling products and/or services including, without limitation, products that are available for ...
5 Jan 1:16 am
Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc., E.D. Va., 2:07cv589 (December 29, 2008) Level 3 sued Limelight over a number of
patents related to a Content Delivery Network (CDN). The patent described a CDN as "a system that supports delivery of information, such as video, music, games, and software, to
computer users or computers on behalf ofits subscribers (typically content providers). A CDN can have multiple servers distributed at various locations around the U.S. and/or the world.
...
29 Jan 5:47 am
Fort Properties, Inc. v. Master Lease LLC, (SACV07-365 AG) C.D. Ca., January 22, 2009 Fort Properties filed suit against Master Lease, seeking
a declaration from the court that Master Lease's patent on business methods for creating an investment instrument out of real property (US patent 6,292,788) was not infringed and/or
invalid. Shortly after the CAFC decided Bilski, Fort Properties filed a SJ motion arguing that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. The district court agreed with Fort ...
16 Apr 1:42 am
... granted in the PTO. Defendants moved to stay the litigation. In denying the motion, Judge Folsom stated In the past, this Court has noted the findings of the Institute for Progress,
an independent organization that has analyzed the inter partes reexamination process. See ESN, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-20-DF
(E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008). On average, inter partes reexaminations in which a patentee defends its rights may take anywhere from thirty-four to fifty-three months without an ...
Search on: Blawgs.FM | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blog Search | Technorati | Google | MSN | Yahoo!