Ad
related to: versata patent lawsuit- Free Phone Consultation
No Cost Call With A Patent Attorney
Unlock Patent Success, Call Now
- Provisional Patents
Fast, Affordable Patent Protection
Secure Patent-Pending Status Now
- Free Phone Consultation
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015), [1] is a July 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit affirming the final order of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the recently created adjudicatory arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), invalidating as patent ineligible the claims in issue of Versata's U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 ...
A jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Versata Software $139m following its decision that SAP infringed two of Versata's patents - U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 and U.S. Patent No. 5,878,400. Sam Baxter, Ted Stevenson, Scott Cole and Steve Pollinger of McKool Smith represented Versata on this case.
In the 2015 Versata case, itself, the Federal Circuit affirmed the final order of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the recently created adjudicatory arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), invalidating as patent ineligible the claims in issue of Versata's patent on a method of determining what price to charge a ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The resulting subsidiary won a fierce patent lawsuit against tech heavyweights Google and AOL, to the tune of $30 million. As if that wasn't enough of an accomplishment, Vringo also snagged 500 ...
In Intel’s case, the company has faced repeated patent infringement lawsuits from VLSI Technology, a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group, which is owned by a sovereign investor in the United ...
Multiple lawsuits over several patents relating to MP3 encoding and compression technologies. Ariad v. Lilly - 2006. Broad infringement case related to a ubiquitous transcription factor. EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. - Supreme Court, 2006. Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement.
For the purpose of calculating damages in a patent infringement action, the infringing "article of manufacture" may be defined as either an end product sold to a consumer or as a component of that product. 35 U.S.C. §289: The relevant text of the Patent Act encompasses both an end product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product.
Ad
related to: versata patent lawsuit