Legal Opinion
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus Inc.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided July 25, 2006No. CIV.A. 3:05CV406PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAYNE, District Judge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) has moved for an award of attorney’s fees against Rambus Inc. (“Ram-bus”), under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the Court’s inherent power. In deciding whether an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate under § 285, it is necessary to determine whether Samsung is a “prevailing party.” For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Samsung is a prevailing party. Whether Samsung is entitled to attorney’s fees is the subject of a separate opinion which resolves SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR FINDING THAT THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Tekelec, Incorporated v. Verint Systems, IncorporaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- State ex rel. Peterson v. Creative Comm. PromotionsNebraska Supreme Court · 2019
- In re LindseyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
- People v. RiveraSuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.