1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 572 F.Supp.2d
  5. 572 F.Supp.2d 786 (2008)
 

MICROSOFT CORP. v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC

Nos. 6:06 CV 549, 6:06 CV 550, 6:06 CV 551, 6:07 CV 204.

572 F.Supp.2d 786 (2008)

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Apple Computer, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Netgear, Inc., Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, Defendants. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Plaintiff v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Nintendo of America, Inc., Fujitsu Computer Systems Corporation, ASUS Computer International, D-Link Systems, Inc., Belkin Corporation, Accton Technology Corporation USA, SMC Networks, Inc., and 3Com Corporation, Defendants Intel Corporation and Dell Inc., Plaintiff v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Defendants Marvell Semiconductor, et al., Plaintiffs v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division.

August 14, 2008.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph P. Reid, Fish & Richardson, San Diego, CA, Barry Kenneth Shelton, Conor Monroe Civins, Fish & Richardson, Brian David Range, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Austin, TX, Indranil Mukerji, Kfir B. Levy, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, Jennifer Parker Ainsworth, Wilson Sheehy Knowles Robertson & Cornelius PC, Tyler, TX, Claudia Lynn Davis, Ryan R. Smith, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, James A. Diboise, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel J. Furniss, Gary H. Ritchey, John E. Lord, Jordan Trent Jones, Julie J. Han, Robert Davis Tadlock, Townsend & Townsend & Crew, Palo Alto, CA, Andrew Wesley Spangler, Pangler Law PC, Elizabeth L. Derieux, Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III, Capshaw Derieux, LLP, Longview, TX, Keith K. Fong, Michael K. Ng, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge.

This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (the "'069 Patent"). Also before the Court is Defendants'1 Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity.2 The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for the reasons below.

BACKGROUND

The '069 Patent relates to a wireless Local Area Network...

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