Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARTINI, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.531
BACKGROUND.531
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD.532
DISCUSSION. S3 2
I. INFRINGEMENT. Ü1 CO to
A. Claim 15 of the Lines ’643 Patent. Ü1 CO CO
1. Direct Versus Indirect Infringement. Ol CO CO
2. The “Latching” Limitation. Ü1 CO ^
3. The “Control Signals Applying” Limitation OI CO 05
B. Claim 1 of the Foss ’654 patent. CJl CO 05
1. The “Switching Circuit ... Alternating the Level” Limitation and the Clock Sources Disclaimer. cti CO <1
2. The “Second Switch” Limitation. cn O
3. The “Clock Signal” Limitation. cn ^ O
C. Claims 1 and 10 of the Foss ’201…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. HRD Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2012
- Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2006
- TC Tech. LLC v. Sprint Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2019
- Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Company, Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.