Search for: "In Re'639 Patent Litigation" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2016, 6:41 am by Dennis Crouch
(Full disclosure – while in practice I represented TT and litigated the patent at issue). [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:57 am by Dennis Crouch
Lawson Software, Inc., No. 15-639 (what happens with a finally-determined permanent injunction after PTO cancels the patent claim?) [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:20 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 1987) (patents issued during trade secret litigation regarding the same technology); see also Vanguard Research, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 7:38 am by Stefanie Levine
   The ‘639 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Soverain Software v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 3:06 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
See id.We also affirmed a district court’s conclusion finding aclaim invalid as indefinite for being directed to two statutoryclasses in In re Katz Interactive Call ProcessingPatent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 12:12 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 6:34 am by Pilar G. Kraman
Id. at 7 (quoting In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 6:16 pm
Id. at *9-10.3) And, as in those cases [IPXL and In re Katz], it is unclear here when infringement would occur. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 7:38 am by Stefanie Levine
   The ‘762 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled In re: Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation (Case. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 7:38 am by Stefanie Levine
   The ‘639 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Soverain Software v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 7:03 am by James L. Higgins
The Court explained that these ordered limitations were within the Court’s discretion, and were consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decisions in In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. [read post]
8 May 2012, 6:31 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
” Id. at *4 (quoting In re Cruci- ferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 5:48 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Indeed, the only perceivable difference between Aetna and our case, on the one hand, and conventional litigation, on the other, is the bare formality that the parties are transposed. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 4:37 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
” In re Katz Interactive Call Process- ing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. [read post]