Legal Opinion
Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 4, 2006No. C-04-0651 EMC. (Docket Nos. 166, 168, and 177)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — “WORKSPACE ELEMENT” AND “INDEPENDENTLY MODIFIABLE COPY”
CHEN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Visto Corporation has sued Defendant Sproqit Technologies, Inc. for infringement of the '192, '708, '131, and '221 patents. The parties submitted ten terms or phrases to the Court for claim construction. A claim construction hearing was held on July 6, 2006. Having considered the parties briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby issues this opinion to address the phrase “an independently modifiable copy of the first workspace element.” While the Court…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. v. Net2phone, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Honeywell International, Inc. v. ITT Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Milton D. Goldenberg and Immunomedics, Inc. v. Cytogen, Inc. And C.R. Bard, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Lamoureux v. AnazaoHealth Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
- Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2008
- American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2009
- B.S.D Crown, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.