Search for: "Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd."
Results 221 - 240
of 488
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2012, 12:38 pm
A U.S. judge rejected several requests by Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd to keep portions of key documents out of public view in their high-stakes patent litigation battle set for trial later this month. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 2:05 am
High Court (Chancery Division) Pressdram Ltd v Whyte [2012] EWHC 1885 (Ch) (30 May 2012) High Court (Administrative Court) London Borough of Islington v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2012] EWHC 1716 (Admin) (27 June 2012) High Court (Commercial Court) Tael One Partners Ltd v Morgan Stanley & Co International Plc [2012] EWHC 1858 (Comm) (09 July 2012) High Court (Patents Court) Samsung Electronics (UK)… [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 8:21 am
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]
28 Jun 2012, 10:57 am
Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 4:31 pm
(collectively, “LG”) and respondents Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung LED Co., Ltd., and Samsung LED America, Inc. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 11:23 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 3:18 pm
Regarding domestic industry, ITRI states that it has licensed the ‘459 patent to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Samsung”), and that Samsung conducts significant activities in the U.S. relating to products that practice at least one claim of the ‘459 patent. [read post]
31 May 2012, 3:40 pm
In Order No. 12, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [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]
30 May 2012, 7:15 am
The court based its decision largely on the decision in Samsung Electronics Co, LTD v. [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]
23 May 2012, 8:39 am
’s (“Apple”) motion seeking permission to re-take the depositions of five witnesses of Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). [read post]
22 May 2012, 10:00 pm
Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. (066570) have already paid $964 million in settlements to Kodak for using the technology. [read post]
22 May 2012, 10:00 pm
Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. (066570) have already paid $964 million in settlements to Kodak for using the technology. [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… [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:01 pm
According to the Notice of Investigation, the ITC has identified the following entities as the respondents in this investigation: AIPTEK International, Inc. of Taiwan Aluratek, Inc. of Tustin, California Archos S.A. of France Archos, Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colorado Bluestar Alliance LLC of New York, New York Centon Electronics, Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California Coby Electronics Corporation of Lake Success, New York Corsair Memory, Inc. of Fremont, California Emtec… [read post]
18 May 2012, 4:49 pm
On May 17, 2012, leave was granted by the Supreme Court (per Justices LeBel, Fish and Cromwell) in the Quebec Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAMs) case (Samsung Electronics Co., et al v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 7:47 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [read post]
17 May 2012, 5:30 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-CV-01846 (N.D. [read post]
16 May 2012, 8:43 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 1662048 (Fed. [read post]
