Search for: "Samsung Electronics Co LTD" Results 201 - 220 of 491
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Oct 2010, 7:22 pm by Eric Schweibenz
  The Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”), Shanghai Lenovo Electronic Co. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 7:58 pm by Florian Mueller
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]
5 Jul 2012, 8:21 am by Mark Summerfield
On 4 July 2012, the England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) delivered a judgement in HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1789 (Pat), finding that five HTC devices – all running Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) – do not infringe any valid claims of four Apple patents. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 8:32 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Patent No. 5,809,336 (the “’336 patent”)against Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Futurewei Technologies,Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei DeviceUSA Inc., Huawei Technologies USA Inc., ZTE Corp., ZTEUSA, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SamsungElectronics America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG ElectronicsU.S.A., Inc., Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo ofAmerica Inc. [read post]
22 May 2012, 7:15 am by Eric Schweibenz
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… [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 9:59 am by Karen E. Keller
(patent infringement) 12/2: In re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation (patent infringement) 12/2: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 4:50 pm by Eric Schweibenz
  The Respondents are Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:24 pm by Eric Schweibenz
In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 9:05 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The outcomeThe Petitioners Google LLC, Motorola Mobility LLC,and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. requested inter partesreview of Claims 1-79 (all the claims) of U.S. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 7:36 am by Docket Navigator
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al., 2-12-cv-00548 (VAED March 6, 2013, Order) (Davis, J.). [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 10:06 am by Docket Navigator
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al., 5-12-cv-00630 (CAND July 24, 2013, Order) (Grewal, M.J.). [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 10:20 am by Dennis Crouch
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit has reversed Judge Albright’s holding that claims of Neonode’s US8095879 are invalid as indefinite. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 5:12 pm by Eric Schweibenz
According to the Notice of Investigation, the ITC has identified Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Samsung LED Co., Ltd. of Korea, Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea, LG Innotek Co., Ltd. of South Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New… [read post]