Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/214756244/Adaptix-v-Amazon-com-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 09:22:03
Document Index: 10978384

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Adaptix v. Amazon.com et. al. | Patent Infringement | Title 35 Of The United States Code
Adaptix v. Amazon.com et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeSecondary LiabilityPatentUnited States Patent LawRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01379-JSW: Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01379-JSW: Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Hon. Jeffrey S. White presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-la9E for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ADAPTIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AT&T, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-432 J URY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT This is an action for patent infringement in which plaintiff, ADAPTIX, Inc. (“ADAPTIX”), complains against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) and Defendants AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC (together “AT&T”) (Amazon and AT&T may be referred to collectively as “Defendants”), as follows: THE PARTIES 1. ADAPTIX is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the
Eastern District of Texas at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093. 2. On information and belief, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a Delaware
corporation with a principal place of business at 1200 12th Avenue, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98144, and regularly does business throughout this judicial district. Amazon’s registered agent for service of process is Corporation Services Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. 3. On information and belief, AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 208 Akard Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 and regularly does business
throughout this judicial district. AT&T, Inc.’s registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 4. On information and belief, AT&T Mobility LLC is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at Glenridge Highlands Two, 5565 Glenridge Connector, Atlanta, Georgia 30342 and/or 1025 Lenox Park Blvd., NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30319, and does business in this judicial district at 5976 West Parker Road, Plano, Texas 75093 and by, among things, committing jointly, directly, and/or indirectly the tort of patent infringement giving rise to this complaint. AT&T Mobility LLC’s registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC may be referred to collectively as “AT&T.” 5. Amazon and AT&T may be referred to collectively as the “Defendants.” JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b, c) and
1400(b). On information and belief, each defendant has purposely transacted business in this judicial district, has committed acts of direct and/or indirect infringement in this judicial district. 8. On information and belief, each defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (A) at least part of its infringing activities alleged herein, and (B) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other
persistent causes of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to persons and other entities in Texas and this judicial district. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,454,212) 9. 10. ADAPTIX incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8 herein by reference. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. 11. ADAPTIX is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 7,454,212,
entitled “OFDMA WITH ADAPTIVE SUBCARRIER-CLUSTER CONFIGURATION AND SELECTIVE LOADING” (“the ’212 patent”) with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’212 patent, including the right to exclude others and to sue and recover damages for the past and future infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ’212 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 12. The ’212 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
Title 35 of the United States Code. 13. ADAPTIX has been damaged as a result of AMAZON’s and AT&T’s infringing
conduct described in this Count. AMAZON and AT&T are, thus, liable to ADAPTIX in an amount that adequately compensates it for their infringement, which by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (Direct Infringement) 14. On information and belief, AMAZON has and continues to directly infringe one
or more claims of the ’212 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United States, including at least claim 1 by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing computerized communications devices, including without limitation the 3
AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’212 patent. AMAZON is thereby liable for infringement of the ’212 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). AMAZON’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until AMAZON is enjoined. AMAZON is thereby liable for infringement of the ’212 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 15. On information and belief, AT&T has and continues to directly infringe one or
more claims of the ’212 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United States, including at least claim 1 by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized communications devices including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’212 patent. AT&T’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage will continue unless and until AT&T is enjoined. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’212 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 16. Based upon information set forth in the preceding two paragraphs, on information
and belief both AMAZON and AT&T have and continue to directly and jointly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United States, including at least claim 1 by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized communications devices including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’212 patent. Thereby, AMAZON and AT&T are jointly liable for infringement of the ’212 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). AMAZON’s and AT&T’s joint infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage will continue unless and until AMAZON and AT&T are enjoined.
(Indirect Infringement - Inducement) 17. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AMAZON has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16 by, among other things, making, selling, testing, and/or importing the AMAZON Kindle Fire™, and/or advertising the LTE capability of the AMAZON Kindle Fire™. AT&T and/or AMAZON’s end users who purchase systems and components thereof and operate such systems and components in accordance with AMAZON’s instructions directly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). AMAZON’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until AMAZON is enjoined. AMAZON is thereby liable for infringement of the ’212 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). 18. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AT&T has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16 by, among other things, taking active steps to encourage and facilitate its customers to purchase and use the AMAZON Kindle Fire™. AT&T’s customers who purchase systems and components thereof and operate such systems and components in accordance with AT&T’s instructions directly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). AT&T’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until AT&T is enjoined. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’212 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
On information and belief, Defendants have been on notice of the ’212 patent
since at least service of this action. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), ADAPTIX will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this issue. 20. On information and belief, since Defendants have been on notice of the ’212
patent since at least service of this action, Defendants have been knowingly inducing infringement of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16 of the ’212 patent, and possessing specific intent to encourage others’ infringement. 21. On information and belief, since Defendants have been on notice of the ’212
patent since at least service of this action, Defendants knew or should have known that their actions would induce actual infringement of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16 of the ’212 patent. 22. Defendants have not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design
(Indirect Infringement - Contributory) 23. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AMAZON has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16 by, among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including entities such as AT&T and end users of AMAZON’s computerized communications devices, including without
limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™, through supplying infringing systems and components, that infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 24. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AT&T has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16 by, among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including entities such as customers of AT&T’s computerized communications devices, including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™, through supplying infringing systems and components, that infringe one or more claims of the ’212 patent, including at least claim 16, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 25. Defendants have and continue to contribute to the direct infringement of others,
such as end users of Defendants’ computerized communications devices, by making, offering to sell, selling, re-selling, and/or importing into the United States a component of a patented apparatus that constitutes a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’212 patent and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. An example of such a material component offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Defendants is Defendants’ computerized communications devices and the technology associated therewith. 26. On information and belief, Defendants have been on notice of the ’212 patent
since at least service of this action, or before, but has continued since that time to cause others to directly infringe the ’212 patent as alleged herein. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3),
ADAPTIX will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this issue. 27. Since Defendants have been on notice of the ’212 patent since at least service of
this action, Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants’ computerized communications devices and the technology associated therewith constituted material components of the inventions claimed in the ’212 patent, are especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’212 patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 28. By virtue of at least this Complaint, Defendants have been provided with written
COUNT II (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,947,748) 29. 30. ADAPTIX incorporates paragraphs 1 through 28 herein by reference. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. 31. ADAPTIX is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 6,947,748
entitled “OFDMA WITH ADAPTIVE SUBCARRIER-CLUSTER CONFIGURATION AND 8
SELECTIVE LOADING” (“the ’748 patent”) with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’748 patent, including the right to exclude others and to sue and recover damages for the past and future infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ’748 patent is attached as Exhibit B. 32. The ’748 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
Title 35 of the United States Code. 33. ADAPTIX has been damaged as a result of AMAZON’s and AT&T’s infringing
conduct described in this Count. AMAZON and AT&T are, thus, liable to ADAPTIX in an amount that adequately compensates it for their infringement, which by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
(Direct Infringement) 34. On information and belief, AMAZON has and continues to directly infringe one
or more claims of the ‘748 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United States, including at least claim 6 and 8 by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing computerized communications devices, including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’748 patent. AMAZON is thereby liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). AMAZON’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until AMAZON is enjoined. AMAZON is thereby liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 35. On information and belief, AT&T has and continues to directly infringe one or
more claims of the ’748 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United
States, including at least claims 6 and 8 by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized communications devices including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’748 patent. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). AT&T’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage will continue unless and until AT&T is enjoined. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 36. Based upon information set forth in the preceding two paragraphs, on information
and belief both AMAZON and AT&T have and continue to directly and jointly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent in this judicial district and/or elsewhere in Texas and the United States, including at least claims 6 and 8 by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing computerized communications devices including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’748 patent. Thereby, AMAZON and AT&T are jointly liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). AMAZON’s and AT&T’s joint infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage will continue unless and until AMAZON and AT&T are enjoined.
(Indirect Infringement - Inducement) 37. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AMAZON has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 6 and 8 and by, among other things, making, selling, testing, and/or importing the AMAZON Kindle Fire™, and/or advertising the LTE capability of the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum,
directly infringe the ’748 patent. AMAZON’s end users who purchase systems and components thereof and operate such systems and components in accordance with AMAZON’s instructions directly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). AMAZON’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until AMAZON is enjoined. AMAZON is thereby liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). 38. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AT&T has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 6 and 8 by, among other things, taking active steps to encourage and facilitate its customers to purchase and use the AMAZON Kindle Fire™ which, at a minimum, directly infringe the ’748 patent. AT&T’s customers who purchase systems and components thereof and operate such systems and components in accordance with AT&T’s instructions directly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). AT&T’s infringement has caused damage to ADAPTIX, which infringement and damage to ADAPTIX will continue unless and until AT&T is enjoined. AT&T is thereby liable for infringement of the ’748 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). 39. On information and belief, Defendants have been on notice of the ’748 patent
since at least service of this action. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), ADAPTIX will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this issue. 40. On information and belief, since Defendants have been on notice of the ’748
patent since at least service of this action, Defendants have been knowingly inducing
infringement of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 6 and 8 of the ’748 patent, and possessing specific intent to encourage others’ infringement. 41. On information and belief, since Defendants have been on notice of the ’748
patent since at least service of this action, Defendants knew or should have known that their actions would induce actual infringement of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 6 and 8 of the ’748 patent. 42. Defendants have not produced any evidence as to any investigation, design
(Indirect Infringement - Contributory) 43. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AMAZON has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 19 and 21 by, among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including entities such as AT&T and end users of AMAZON’s computerized communications devices, including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™, through supplying infringing systems and components, that infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 19 and 21, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 44. Based on the information presently available to ADAPTIX, absent discovery, and
in the alternative to direct infringement, ADAPTIX contends that AT&T has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 19 and 21 by,
among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including entities such as customers of AT&T’s computerized communications devices, including without limitation the AMAZON Kindle Fire™, through supplying infringing systems and components, that infringe one or more claims of the ’748 patent, including at least claims 19 and 21, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 45. Defendants have and continue to contribute to the direct infringement of others,
such as end users of Defendants’ computerized communications devices, by making, offering to sell, selling, re-selling, and/or importing into the United States a component of a patented apparatus that constitutes a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’748 patent and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. An example of such a material component offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Defendants is Defendants’ computerized communications devices and the technology associated therewith. 46. On information and belief, Defendants have been on notice of the ’748 patent
since at least service of this action, or before, but has continued since that time to cause others to directly infringe the ’748 patent as alleged herein. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), ADAPTIX will likely have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery on this issue. 47. Since Defendants have been on notice of the ’748 patent since at least service of
this action, Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants’ computerized communications devices and the technology associated therewith constituted material components of the inventions claimed in the ’748 patent, are especially made or especially
adapted for use in infringement of the ’748 patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 48. By virtue of at least this Complaint, Defendants have been provided with written
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, ADAPTIX respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. Judgment in favor of ADAPTIX that each defendant has infringed the ’212 and
post-judgment interest and costs thereon pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; D. E. A determination that this case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and Any and all further relief to which the Court may deem ADAPTIX is entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ADAPTIX requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. Date: May 28, 2013 ADAPTIX, INC. By: _/s/ Craig Tadlock__________________ Craig Tadlock Texas State Bar. No. 00791766 Keith Smiley Texas State Bar No. 24067869 TADLOCK LAW FIRM PLLC 2701 Dallas Parkway, Suite 360 Plano, Texas 75093 Tel: (903) 730-6789 Email: craig@tadlocklawfirm.com Email: keith@tadlocklawfirm.com
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Adaptix v. Amazon.com Et. Al.Skip carouselUntitledNanosys Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against QD VisionPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. YahooAmerican Covers v. OK/USA Distribution et. al.Wyncomm v. Silicon Mountain Memory Et. Al.Content Extraction And Transmission v. Executive TechnologiesJernberg Dental v. Integra Lifesciences Holdings et. al.MacroSolve v. BoxEntertainment Printing Enterprises v. TicktboxMacroSolve v. Pandora MediaChoi v. North Bear Beauty SystemsSunbeam Products v. Hamilton Beach BrandsRTC Industries v. Henschel-SteinauNovaerus Group v. Airmanager TechnologiesHowlink Global v. Global Tel*LinkInternet Access Solutions v. AOLVermeer Manufacturing Company v. Straightline HDDApple lawsuit against HTCShinn Fu v. Bon-Aire IndustriesBeneficial v. MSFT ComplaintBoottique IP v. Forever 21 et. al.Uniloc Luxembourg et. al. v. eClinical WorksSteuben Foods v. NestleJ-Channel Industries v. Clayton Homes Et. Al.Hap Corporation v. Heyman Manufacturing Company, Heyman Manufacturing Company v. Hap Corporation, 311 F.2d 839, 1st Cir. (1963)Xtreme Plastics LLC v. G&G Landscape - ComplaintHBAC MatchMaker Media v. AOLAdvanced Processor Technologies v. XilinxCongress Boston 2008 ADOPTED Version September 10, 2008 Resolution
MoJack Distributors v. J & S JacksDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinNYT Complaint Against LodsysFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Nike v. SkechersPosner OrderBU v AppleSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintRockstar v Samsung.pdfLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et Al3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Amended Galaxy ComplaintPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Data Speed Technology LLCAllen Video Technology v. Sony et. al.e.Digital et. al. v. Strontium Americas et. al.Steelhead Licensing LLCPatent Harbor v. Platinum Disc, LLC d/b/a Echo Bridge Home EntertainmentSmartFit Solutions v. Equinox HoldingsDelaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Beverage Dispensing Solutions v. Coca-Cola CompanyMobile Telecommunications Technologies v. AppleInteplast Group v. Primex PlasticsEMG Technology v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyPromethean Insulation Technology v. Soprema et. al.Schlagel v. S-M EnterprisesMore From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop