Legal Opinion
Sonos, Inc. v. D & M Holdings Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided December 7, 2017No. Civil Action No. 14–1330–WCBPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAM C. BRYSON, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Absolute Intervening Rights with Respect to the '949 Patent, Dkt. No. 463. The motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Defendants D & M Holdings Inc., D & M Holdings U.S. Inc., and Denon Electronics (USA), LLC (collectively, "D & M") seek a ruling that D & M is not liable for patent infringement for specific things that D & M made, offered for sale, sold, or used before the issuance of the reexamination certification for plaintiff Sonos, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,588,949 ("the '949 patent"), on November 5,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bic Leisure Products, Inc., and Windglider Fred Ostermann, Gmbh v. Windsurfing International, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant, and James R. DrakeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- The Laitram Corporation v. Nec Corporation and Nec Information Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Slimfold Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Kinkead Industries, Inc. And United States Gypsum Company, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Shockley v. Arcan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- The Laitram Corporation v. Nec Corporation, Nec Information Systems, Inc., and Sears, Roebuck and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2020