NOTICE of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice by Aaron M Panner on behalf of All Plaintiffs.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - FEDERAL CIRCUIT as to 606 Judgment by Apple Inc. re 619 Notice of Appeal - FEDERAL CIRCUIT (dlc, )
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, 606 Judgment, 229 Report & Recommendation, 351 Order Adopting, 432 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 481 Order, 479 Order Adopting, 480 Order Adopting, 582 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 423 Report and Recommendation, 484 Order Adopting, 585 Order, 388 Report and Recommendation, 487 Order Adopting, 390 Report and Recommendation, 482 Order Adopting, 605 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 581 Order, 608 Order, 379 Sealed Opinion, 440 Order, and Certified copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit by separate email.
USCA-FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case Number 16-1059 (dlc, )ĪCKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT on 10/5/15, by USCA-FEDERAL CIRCUIT as to 480 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 440 Order on Sealed Motion, 432 Memorandum & Opinion, 619 Notice of Appeal - FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 479 Order, 606 Judgment, 581 Order on Sealed Motion, 423 Report and Recommendations, 481 Order, 351 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 608 Order, 388 Report and Recommendations, 379 Order on Sealed Motion, 229 Report and Recommendations, 482 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 605 Order on Sealed Motion, 390 Report and Recommendations, 487 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 585 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 582 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 484 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, and Certified copy of Docket Sheet. NOTICE of Docketing Notice of Appeal from USCA-Federal Circuit re 619 Notice of Appeal - FEDERAL CIRCUIT filed by Apple Inc. The moral of the story: Even if you have a good idea, simply claiming it first clearly isn’t enough when you’re up against a superpower in the court of law.This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2016. Its case against Samsung is still pending.Īpple and Samsung are now colluding in a challenge regarding the validity of Smartflash’s patents, Reuters reports, and are asking the United States Patent and Trademark Office to take a closer look at some of Smartflash’s more “abstract” filings. Nevertheless, the company has filed numerous lawsuits against a wide range of tech giants, including not only Apple, but Samsung, Google, and Amazon as well. Founded in 2000 by Patrick Racz, Smartflash does indeed have a number of patents around data storage, but the company never produced any products. The case has dragged on for nearly four years in total, as Smartflash first sued Apple in May 2013. In the most recent decision, a three-judge appeals panel unanimously determined that the patents Smartflash does have are too “abstract” and fail to describe any real invention closely enough to benefit the company.
Smartflash full#
The decision comes a full two years after Smartflash was first declared the victor in the legal dispute by a Texas federal jury. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court overturned the original verdict requiring Apple to pay the impressive sum of $533 million to Smartflash LLC, a tech company that accused Apple of infringing upon its data storage patents with its iTunes software. Its patent disputes with Samsung and Nokia are another story, but at least in the case of Apple versus Smartflash, the iEmpire has come out on top.