Ad
related to: google lawsuit patent holder attorney fees and expenses chart
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023. [2] The suit accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
In 2016, a Texas jury awarded Bedrock Computer Technologies $5 million in a patent lawsuit against Google. [38] [39] The patent allegedly covered use of hash tables with garbage collection and separate chaining in the Red Hat Linux kernel. Google and Bedrock later settled the case and the judgment was vacated by the court. [40]
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers.
The settlement comes the same day that closing arguments were scheduled to begin in a trial on Singular Computing's lawsuit, which had sought $1.67 billion in damages for Google's alleged misuse ...
All signs point to potentially years of lawsuits capitalizing on the judge’s antitrust ruling against Google, said Shmulik. “Far be it from me to judge how excited lawyers sound,” he said.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
On May 23, 2014, Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe agreed to settle for $324.5 million. Lawyers sought 25% in attorneys' fees, plus expenses of as much as $1.2 million, according to the filing. Additional award payments of $80,000 were sought for each named plaintiff who served as a class representative. [18]
[31] (the '104 patent). Google pursued a non-infringement defense. For the '520 patent, they argued that they were using parsing for optimizing static initialization, rather than "simulating execution" as the claim required. For the '104 patent, they argued that the instruction did not include a symbolic reference.
Ad
related to: google lawsuit patent holder attorney fees and expenses chart