1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 838 F.3d
  5. 838 F.3d 1224 (2016)
 

COX COMMUNICATIONS v. SPRINT COMMUNICATION CO. LP.

2016-1013.

838 F.3d 1224 (2016)

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CoxCom, LLC, Cox Arkansas Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Arizona LLC, Cox Arizona Telcom LLC, Cox California Telcom LLC, Cox Communications California LLC, Cox Colorado Telcom LLC, Cox Connecticut Telcom LLC, Cox District of Columbia Telcom LLC, Cox Florida Telcom LP, Cox Communications Georgia LLC, Cox Georgia Telcom LLC, Cox Iowa Telcom LLC, Cox Idaho Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Kansas LLC, Cox Kansas Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Gulf Coast LLC, Cox Communications Louisiana LLC, Cox Louisiana Telcom LLC, Cox Maryland Telcom LLC, Cox Missouri Telcom LLC, Cox Nebraska Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Omaha LLC, Cox Communications Las Vegas Inc., Cox Nevada Telcom LLC, Cox North Carolina Telcom LLC, Cox Ohio Telcom LLC, Cox Oklahoma Telcom LLC, Cox Rhode Island Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC, Cox Virginia Telcom LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY LP, Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Sprint Solutions, Inc., Defendants-Appellants Cisco Systems, Inc., Defendant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: September 23, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

MICHAEL LOUIS BRODY , Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by STEFFEN NATHANAEL JOHNSON , EIMERIC REIG-PLESSIS , Washington, DC; DAVID SPENCER BLOCH , San Francisco, CA; KRISHNAN PADMANABHAN , New York, NY.

J. MICHAEL JAKES , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by BASIL TRENT WEBB , PETER EMANUEL STRAND , AARON E. HANKEL , JOHN D. GARRETSON , RYAN DYKAL , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO; ROB RECKERS , Houston, TX.

Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge Newman.

Sprint Communication Company LP and its affiliates (collectively, "Sprint") appeal from a final decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,633,561; 7,286,561; 6,298,064; and 6...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases