Search for: "Samsung Electronics USA Inc."
Results 41 - 60
of 122
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Dec 2011, 8:32 pm
Patent Nos. 5,926,636 (the ‘636 patent), 5,929,655 (the ‘655 patent), 6,208,879 (the ‘879 patent), and 6,456,841 (the ‘841 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… [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 2:51 pm
According to the Order, on April 2, 2010, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Shanghai Lenovo Electronic Co., Ltd., Apple Inc., AsusTek Computer, Inc., Asus Computer International, Inc., Transcend Information, Inc., Transcend… [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 8:22 am
Pulse Electronics, Inc. [read post]
28 Mar 2021, 2:11 am
"Samsung:"On information and belief, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. conducts business operations in the Western District of Texas in its facilities at 12100 Samsung Blvd., Austin, Texas 78754. [read post]
3 May 2012, 2:45 pm
Rovi states that it licenses its patent portfolio to many of the leading consumer electronics and television service provider companies in the U.S., including Toshiba Corporation, Sharp Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
10 May 2016, 12:23 pm
The following companies are receiving the orders: Apple, Inc.; Blackberry Corp.; Google, Inc.; HTC America, Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; Microsoft Corp.; Motorola Mobility, LLC; and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 4:06 pm
The complaint alleges that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”), AT&T, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, Best Buy Co., Inc. of Richfield, Minnesota, and BrandsMart USA, Inc. of Hollywood, Florida (all collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation,… [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 10:02 am
In the authors’ view, Judge Newman’s analysis on the issue of copying and related commercial success might be relevant in view of the current litigation between Apple, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 1:25 pm
Distributors of Electronics Assoc.; Nemours Foundation; Premier, Inc.; Premier Farnell; Resource Media; Samsung; Sprout Creation; Stokes Lawrence; and Wells Fargo. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 11:26 am
The original Respondents were Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”), LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 6:09 pm
The Respondents in this investigation are: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung International, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; Apple Inc.; AsusTek Computer, Inc.; Asus Computer International, Inc.; Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.; Kingston Technology Co., Inc.; Kingston… [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:22 am
The Kat is question is Darren Smyth (EIP), who only a few days ago rested his posting paws after a tiring six-month stint as one of three guest Kats for the first half of the year and who now, to the great pleasure of us all, has just presented the blog with a hot-off-the-press analysis of this morning's ruling of Judge Birss QC, sitting as a Patents Court judge, in Samsung Electronics UK v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat), which is fully illustrated and… [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:22 am
The Kat is question is Darren Smyth (EIP), who only a few days ago rested his posting paws after a tiring six-month stint as one of three guest Kats for the first half of the year and who now, to the great pleasure of us all, has just presented the blog with a hot-off-the-press analysis of this morning's ruling of Judge Birss QC, sitting as a Patents Court judge, in Samsung Electronics UK v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat), which is fully illustrated and… [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 11:03 am
The Kat is question is Darren Smyth (EIP), who only a few days ago rested his posting paws after a tiring six-month stint as one of three guest Kats for the first half of the year and who now, to the great pleasure of us all, has just presented the blog with a hot-off-the-press analysis of this morning's ruling of Judge Birss QC, sitting as a Patents Court judge, in Samsung Electronics UK v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat), which is fully illustrated and… [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 10:59 am
Samsung Electronics America v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:44 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 19-101 (reviewing jury verdict and 7th Amendment) Arunachalam v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:40 am
Briefing: Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 8:46 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 17-116 AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 6:00 am
The report, published in February 2018 and titled, Mobile Security Updates: Understanding the Issues, presents findings based upon information requested by the FTC in 2016 of eight mobile device manufacturers: Apple, Inc., Blackberry Corp., Google, Inc., HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., Microsoft Corp., Motorola Mobility, LLC, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [read post]
