Legal Opinion

Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided April 1, 2005No. 01-CV-4340(WJM), 03-CV-4698(WJM)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. 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

  1. Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
  2. Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. HRD Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2012
  3. Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2006
  4. TC Tech. LLC v. Sprint Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2019
  5. Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Company, Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 2024

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API