Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2006, the number of cases grew to an estimated 236. [5] The district has been perceived to be a favorable jurisdiction for plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits, which win 88% of the time compared to a nationwide average of 68% in 2006, [6] even, according to some claims, in dubious cases (i.e. patent trolls). [7]
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits. [1]While a 1957 Supreme Court ruling had determined that patent infringement cases were to be tried in the state within which the defendant was incorporated, subsequent changes to Judiciary and Judicial Procedure implemented by ...
Patent issues raised in counterclaim do not give rise to Federal Circuit jurisdiction Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. 545 U.S. 193: 2005: Related to Research exemption. EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 547 U.S. 388: 2006: Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement.
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.
There were 14 patent cases in 1999, [12] 32 in 2002, [3] 155 in 2005, [12] and 234 in 2006. [3] And, in 2013, 1,495 patent cases were filed. [13] The Eastern District of Texas is one of eight with more than 100 new patent filings each year. [12] Ward heard more than 160 patent cases in his first seven years on the bench. [8]
U.S. Patent 7,133,834 - (The "834" patent) "Product Value Information Interchange Server" U.S. Patent 7,222,078 - (The "078" patent) "Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network" U.S. Patent 7,620,565 - (The "565" patent) "Customer-based product design module" All four patents expired between 2012 ...
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents): patent of higher lifeforms (CA, 2002) Honeywell v. Sperry Rand (US, 1973) Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (US, 1850) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH (European Court of Justice, C-170/13, 2015), judgement on standard-essential patents
Apple and Samsung litigated patent infringement cases in several European nations starting in 2011, with implications for device sales across all of the European Union. [ 75 ] [ 76 ] In August 2011, the Landgericht Court in Germany granted Apple's request for an EU-wide injunction banning Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 device, on the ...