We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-7 of 7

Nextel Commc’ns, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2009

The TTAB sustained Nextel Communications, Inc.’s (“Nextel”) opposition to Motorola, Inc.’s (“Motorola”) application to register a “chirp” sound for cellular telephones and two-way radios

Court upholds infringement rulings against Vonage for two of three Verizon VoIP patents

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 11 2007

In Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., Nos. 07-1240, -1251, -1274 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction, jury instructions, and injunction for two of three Verizon Services Corporation, Verizon Laboratories Inc., or Verizon Communications, Inc. (collectively “Verizon”) patents asserted against Vonage Holdings Corporation and Vonage America, Inc. (collectively “Vonage”) with respect to Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology

ENEA Embedded Tech., Inc. v. Eneas Corp.

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 16 2009

The District of Arizona dismissed plaintiffs’ federal infringement and unfair competition claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1

Finding of noninfringement affirmed where allegedly subversive arguments made at trial did not subvert the jury’s reason or commitment to decide the issues on the evidence received and the law as given

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2010

In Verizon Services Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc., Nos. 09-1086, -1098 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on the issues of infringement and validity of Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Communications, Inc., MCI Communications, Inc., and Verizon Business Global LLC’s (collectively “Verizon”) patents

A supplier has standing to bring a DJ action when the patentee’s actions imply that the supplier contributorily infringes

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

In Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecommunications, PLC, No. 10-1292 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2011), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a DJ case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and found that an Article III case or controversy existed based on the DJ plaintiff’s potential liability for contributory infringement

After excluding expert testimony on damages and denying injunctive relief, judge dismisses case without considering the underlying merits of infringement liability or providing opportunity for additional damages testimony

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2012

In Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., a recent smartphone litigation, the district court focused on the sufficiency of expert testimony on damages

Court allows discovery of license and settlement agreements, damages expert reports, and damages expert testimony from different litigation concerning related technology

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2012

In the United States legal system, discovery is a wide-ranging tool that allows litigants to obtain information "regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense."

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy