Search for: "Samsung Electronics America"
Results 81 - 100
of 324
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Nov 2011, 3:52 pm
Patent Nos. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent), 6,816,145 (the ‘145 patent), and 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”): Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas HTC Corporation of Taiwan HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego,… [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 5:57 pm
District Court for the Northern District of California denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Sam- sung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 4:40 pm
The complaint alleges that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, sell within the U.S. after importation, and/or offer for sale within the U.S. after importation certain electronic digital media… [read post]
21 Apr 2017, 6:57 am
Trump, urging him to shield the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from political interference that could derail the ongoing antitrust litigation in the Northern District of California against Qualcomm (this post continues below the document): 17-04-20 Multi-Stakeholder SEP White House Letter by Florian Mueller on ScribdThe letter was signed by two industry associations--ACT | The App Association (whose sponsor members include Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, AT&T and others) and the Alliance… [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 3:48 pm
Patent Nos. 5,854,893 (the ‘893 patent), 6,237,025 (the ‘025 patent), 7,054,904 (the ‘904 patent), 7,185,054 (the ‘054 patent), and/or 7,206,809 (the ‘809 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”): ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. of Taiwan ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California HTC Corporation of Taiwan HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of… [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 12:26 pm
('Vertical') and Defendant s Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 7:58 pm
With the exception of certain kinds of standard-essential patents (for example, cellular standards patents), it's clear that the product will still be sold after being modified to work around the enforced patents, maybe after a minor disruption caused by the need to make those modifications.If products are named in an injunction order, they are only examples of infringement and do not limit the scope of an injunction that is worded like Judge Koh's two recent injunctions against… [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 12:30 pm
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Civil Action No. 07-2141, 2008 WL 878402 (D.N.J. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 3:43 pm
(“Sony”), and Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Philips”). [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 4:05 pm
Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent): Acer Inc. of Taiwan Acer America Corporation of San Jose, California Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington Barnes & Noble, Inc. of New York, New York Garmin Ltd. of Switzerland Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas Garmin USA, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas HTC Corporation of Taiwan HTC America of Bellevue, Washington Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of China Huawei North America of Plano, Texas Kyocera Corporation of Japan… [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 5:48 am
I will then tell you what each side must prove to win on each of its contentions.As I previously explained, Apple seeks money damages from Samsung Electronics Company ("SEC"), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 2:27 pm
In Order No. 26, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Walker Digital and Respondents Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 7:13 pm
Patent Nos. 5,854,893 (the ‘893 patent), 6,237,025 (the ‘025 patent), 6,351,762 (the ‘762 patent), 7,185,054 (the ‘054 patent), and/or 7,206,809 (the ‘809 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”): ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. of Taiwan ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California Pantech Co., Ltd. of South Korea Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas Samsung… [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 8:45 am
The panelists: Marilyn Caldwell - Director of Practice Support, Lowenstein Sandler Michelangelo Troisi - Senior Counsel and Director of Risk Managment, Samsung Electronics America Scott Cohen - Proskauer Craig Ball - Consultant and court-appointed Special Master for EDD Introduction. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 5:20 pm
Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. [read post]
25 May 2012, 1:48 pm
(“Motorola”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and related entities (collectively, “Samsung”), and Sony Corporation and its subsidiary Sony Mobile Communications (collectively, “Sony”). [read post]
30 May 2012, 12:21 pm
By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple Inc. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 6:59 am
" Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., CBM2014-00190 (PTAB May 26, 2016, Order) (Elluru, APJ) [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 6:56 am
" Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., CBM2014-00192 (PTAB March 30, 2016, Order) (Plenzler, APJ) [read post]
22 May 2012, 7:15 am
By way of background, on October 14, 2011, Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike Apple’s 380-page Notice of Prior Art “on the basis that it failed to comply with Ground Rule 4 and failed to provide Complainants and the Commission Investigative Staff [‘OUII’] with effective notice as to the prior art upon which Respondent… [read post]
