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 179

District Court Precludes Defendant from Making Disparaging Remarks Directed at Patent and Trademark Office in Front of Jury But Permits Plaintiff to Make Remarks Consistent with Presumption of Validity
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • August 2 2016

Core Wireless Licensing ("Core Wireless") filed a patent infringement action against LG Electronics, Inc. ("LG"). As the matter approached trial


Damage experts' opinions excluded where expert did not establish link between license and the patent-in-suit
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • July 18 2011

In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the court granted in pat and denied in part plaintiff's motion to exclude the expert testimony of defendants' damage experts.


Declaratory judgment ripe for adjudication even though retention not yet met
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 6 2011

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas refused to dismiss an insurer’s declaratory judgment action simply because the applicable policy’s self-insured retention had not yet been satisfied.


Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Storage America, Inc. et al., 2:06-cv-00348, E.D. Tex.
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • August 19 2010

The district court granted a new trial on damages, erasing the jury's verdict of $52M, finding that award to be clearly excessive and against the great weight of the evidence.


Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. et al. v. Diamond Innovations Inc., 6:08-cv-00325, E.D. Tex.
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • August 19 2010

The district court allowed five settlement agreements to be admitted at trial along with other license agreements - holding that any risk of confusion or prejudice was outweighed by relevance - with the caveat that the settlement agreements not be called out as settlement agreements at trial.