Legal Opinion

CopyTele, Inc. v. E Ink Holdings, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided July 9, 2013No. C-13-0378 EMCPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING

(Docket No. 38)

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. has filed a patent infringement action against Defendants E Ink Holdings, Inc. and. E Ink Corporation (collectively, “E. Ink”). According to CopyTele, it is the sole owner of all rights, title, and interest in three patents (the ’935 patent; the ’810 patent, and the ’488 patent), see Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, and E Ink has infringed on those patents. Currently pending before the Court is E Ink’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. In essence, E Ink…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Texas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  5. Wolfe v. StrankmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
  2. Poorsina v. Bank of America, N. A.District Court, N.D. California · 2024
  3. Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API