Search for: "GPNE Corp."
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2014, 4:35 pm
Apple A San Jose jury has handed up a verdict [PDF] finding that Apple does not infringe two patents owned by GPNE Corp., a patent-holding company that has licensed its patents to more than 20 other large companies. [read post]
24 Nov 2016, 9:39 am
In GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2016, 9:39 am
In GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 11:00 pm
In GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 7:09 am
GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 7:04 am
GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 12:05 pm
See generally GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 10:54 am
" GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 4:20 am
”7In GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2019, 2:27 am
Motorola, GPNE Corp v. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 7:35 am
GPNE Corp. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 10:51 pm
" That is, quite obviously, the reason for which Avanci's first transfer motion, prior to the one that is pending now, tried to at least move the case up north to San Francisco--before it had even been formally assigned to Judge Koh.Among the other relevant cases that Continental lists are some that Judge Koh presided over, with her decision on the smallest salable patent-practicing unit in GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2018, 8:47 am
The motion per se doesn't even require the court to find Qualcomm in breach of those commitments (which would involve factual questions relating to Qualcomm's interactions with the likes of Intel).Long passages of the motion have been redacted out, which is why the context of the following isn't clear, but it's interesting nonetheless: in 2014, Judge Koh herself held in GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 1:39 pm
But even if it weren't, the key findings in the Qualcomm case regarding component-level licensing and the smallest salable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU), and the conclusions Judge Koh had previously reached in GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2018, 7:01 am
Once the importance of the mastermind component is downplayed, the ultimate consequence may be that not even a device infringes since electricity must be provided by a utility, which in turn needs some energy source somewhere.In a 2014 case, GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 11:02 am
What those Qualcomm executives said internally is perfectly consistent, however, with what Ericsson once said in public about why it chooses to strike license deals with device makers, not chipset makers.Again, there is a hurdle involved (going from the interpretation of two contracts to a general FRAND obligation), but none of what Qualcomm has said in its attempts to explain why it shouldn't be obligated to extend FRAND licenses to rival chipset makers is even remotely persuasive--and this is… [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 8:51 pm
GPNE Corp., Case No.1:07-cv-00671. [read post]
IRS described itself as Qualcomm's 'silent partner' in imposing patent tax on mobile device industry
10 Apr 2019, 12:50 pm
But cellular standard-essential patents are, and that's what she's held in an unrelated case (GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2019, 8:13 am
It's a rather iPhone-centric perspective, but the biggest problem here for Qualcomm is that Judge Koh ruled in GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
