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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 509

The future of inducing infringement claims after Limelight v. Akamai
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • November 5 2014

In Limelight v. Akamai, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's precedent holding that inducing infringement claims did not


Motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Section 101 denied where defendant failed to include challenge in invalidity contentions
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • May 13 2015

In this patent infringement action between Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. ("Good) and Defendant MobileIron


District court denies motion to compel and for sanctions where CFO could not be compelled to testify on broad deposition topics including royalties, affirmative defenses, infringement contentions and invalidity contentions
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2015

Plaintiff Stoneeagle Services, Inc. ("Stoneeagle") filed a motion seeking sanctions against Defendant Premier Healthcare Exchange, Inc. ("PHX") for


Research in Motion: purported inventor's late-filed lawsuit dooms claim of co-inventorship because laches based on economic prejudice bars the claims
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • June 1 2012

In this dispute over the inventorship of a patent that is integral to BlackBerry products, the district court held a bench trial on the applicability of laches


Court finds that Rule 26 disclosure and computation of damages insufficient where party failed to explain how it calculated damage number
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • February 24 2014

Orbit Irrigation Products ("Orbit") filed a patent infringement action against Sunhills International ("Sunhills"). After the completion of certain


Apple v. Samsung: the Federal Circuit reverses the district court and sets new standards for obtaining permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • April 8 2014

As the ongoing war between Apple and Samsung continues, one of the key questions facing both parties is whether Apple can ultimately obtain permanent


Another one bites the dust: action dismissed for lack of standing where plaintiff could not prove ownership of the patent-in-suit
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2015

America's Collectibles Network ("ACN") filed a patent infringement action in which it claimed to own U.S. Patent No. 8,370,211 (the "211 Patent"). It


Court denies motion to compel deposition testimony on overly broad 30(b)(6) topics and on "contention" topics
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2014

In this patent infringement action brought by Trustees of Boston University ("BU"), BU alleged that defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738


Parent company ordered to produce documents in response to request to subsidiary where parent and subsidiary shared servers and databases
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • September 17 2014

Plaintiff Dri-Steem Corporation ("Dri-Steem") sought production of documents in the possession and control of the defednant's parent company National


District court declines to lift stay even after Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued written decision on CBM petitions
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • April 15 2015

The district court stayed several consolidated cases pending certain proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). In the order