Search for: "Seagate"
Results 241 - 260
of 571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2012, 6:00 am
And, today only: Seagate Expansion 500 GB Portable External Hard Drive, $54.99. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 3:40 pm
By way of background, on November 20, 2008, Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) filed a complaint with the ITC against LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) (collectively, “Respondents”) alleging violation of Section 337 by the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of chips and products containing… [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 10:21 am
Judge Newman dissented; in her view, the majority failed to apply the de novo standard of review required by Seagate; applying that standard, the district court erred. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 7:38 am
It goes to the defendant's knowledge and state of mind, which Seagate holds irrelevant to the objective inquiry. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 1:45 pm
Patent folks have been waiting for this, which analyzes waiver of attorney client privilege in patent litigation. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 9:54 am
Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“Seagate”) is a question of law that may be based on mixed questions of law and fact, and that the determination of that prong is subject to de novo appellate review. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 4:18 pm
In support, HTC cited Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374: [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 2:02 pm
Seagate: The Supreme Court has declined to grant certiorari in the Seagate decision. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 10:01 am
(citing In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 4:52 am
" However, "[f]ollowing Seagate, this court established the rule that generally the objective prong of Seagate tends not to be met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement.'" Id. at 4-5. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 6:50 am
.' Assuming without deciding that the jury’s verdict, based on the subjective prong of the now-overruled [In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 3:25 pm
Shukh demonstrated “unsatisfactory” teamworkskills, explaining that he “is often insistent on gettingappropriate or complete credit for his work” and that he“repeatedly accused” Seagate workers of “stealing hiswork. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 6:58 am
. __ (June 13, 2016)], the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-part test from Seagate for determining when a district court may award enhanced damages as inconsistent with § 284. [read post]
12 Oct 2012, 9:00 am
Samsung maintains a “substantial strategic relationship” with Seagate; in fact in 2011 Samsung sold its hard drive division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.4 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 12:29 pm
In re Seagate adopted a two-part test for determining when a district court could increase damages pursuant to §284, which was simply too rigid. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 7:00 am
The Seagate opinion removed the presumption that the infringement is willful due to an infringer’s failure to obtain an exculpatory opinion. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 7:39 am
The decision rejects the dual objective/subjective test of Seagate as “inconsistent” with the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 3:41 am
The Court also addressed the scope of a defendant's waiver of its attorney-client privilege and work product protection resulting from the defendant's assertion of the advice-of-counsel defense to a willful infringement claim.In In re Seagate Technology, LLC, the Court abolished the "affirmative duty of care" set forth in Underwater Devices Inc. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 11:04 pm
In a long-running Broadcom battle, Broadcom just settled for $19.6 million, after a winning a $39.3 million jury award for willful infringement, overturned by the trial judge because the CAFC set the willfulness standard near the ceiling in Seagate this past August. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 7:16 pm
In a ruling replete with succinct case law infusions, appeal of most everything found the district court ruling in the right vein, except, most notably, willfulness in light of Seagate. [read post]
