Legal Opinion
Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
District Court, E.D. Texas
Decided June 28, 2012No. Case No. 6:09-CV-203PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge.
Before the Court are the parties’ post-trial motions. Having considered the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, the Court: DENIES Samsung’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law that: (1) Samsung Does Not Infringe Any Claim of the Patents-in-Suit; (2) the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are Invalid; (3) Samsung is Not A Willful Infringer; and (4) the Damages Award was Improper (Docket No. 1025, “JMOL”); DENIES Samsung’s Motion Under Rule 52 for Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding…
2Cases cited81 opinions
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2017
- Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. LillyDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2017
- In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2018
- Geoffrion v. Nationstar Mortgage LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2016
- VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.