Legal Opinion
In Re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 8, 2011No. Misc. No. 2007-0493PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON CAMERA MANUFACTURERS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
In this Multi District Litigation (“MDL”), 1 Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. (“Papst”) has alleged that digital camera manufacturers that sell products in the United States have infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 (“'399 Patent”) and 6,895,449 (“'449 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents”). In opposition, the Camera Manufacturers seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and/or patent invalidity.
The Camera Manufacturers 2 now move for sanctions and seek attorney’s fees due to Papst’s filing its…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Praxair, Inc. v. Atmi, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research & Engineering Company v. The Lubrizol CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- CONNECTEL, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2005
- STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Champion Power Equipment Incorporated v. Firman Power Equipment IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2026
- In Re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATIONDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Oil-Dri Corporation of America v. Nestle Purina Petcare CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
- TD Professional Services v. Truyo IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2024