Legal Opinion
Wireless Ink Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 29, 2013No. Nos. 10 Civ. 1841(PKC), 11 Civ. 1751(PKC)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
P. KEVIN CASTEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Wireless Ink Corp. (“Wireless Ink”) has asserted multiple claims against defendants YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, Google, Inc. (collectively, “Google”)1, and Faeeb'ook, Inc. (“Facebook”) for direct and indirect patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., on the bases of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the defendants’ motions for summary…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Carol A. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Limited Partnership, Doing Business as Prudential Relocation ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mich & Mich TGR, Inc. v. BrazabraDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Industrial Engineering & Development, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2014