Akamai v. Limelight was decided on November 16, 2015 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that plaintiff Akamai’s patent (claiming a method for delivering content over the internet) was not invalid and was infringed by defendant Limelight. To prove damages, Akamai relied on Dr. Ugone’s expert testimony, …
Summit 6 v. Samsung was decided on September 21, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The patent relates to the processing and uploading of digital photos. The jury found plaintiff Summit’s patent not invalid and infringed, and awarded Summit $15 million in damages. Summit settled with another defendant, RIM, before trial. …
Monsanto v. Bowman was decided on September 21, 2011 on appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). “Since 1996, Monsanto has marketed and sold .. soybean seeds under its own brands, and licenses its technology to seed …
SRI International v. Advanced Technology Laboratories was decided on October 23, 1997 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In May 1986, plaintiff SRI sent a letter to defendant Advanced Technology Laboratories (ATL) offering a non-exclusive license. …