Legal Opinion
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 29, 2013No. Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHKPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE: INDEFINITENESS
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
In this patent case, a jury found that Samsung had infringed several of Apple’s patents, including Claim 50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,168 (“the '163 Patent”) and four design patents: No. D618,677 (“the D'677 Patent”); No. D593,087 (“the D'087 Patent”); No. D604,305 (“the D'305 Patent”); and No. D504,889 (“the D'889 Patent”). Samsung now argues that Claim 50 of the '163 Patent and all four design patents are invalid for failure to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Motion on Samsung’s Non-Jury Claims, ECF No. 1988…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- 02 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Amgen, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Genetics Institute, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Pall Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Micron Separations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho Corp.District Court, W.D. Texas · 2016
- Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative AccessoriesDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2016
- Ecoservices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Servs., LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2018
- 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2022
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.