1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 807 F.Supp.2d
  5. 807 F.Supp.2d 563 (2011)
 

ACTIVEVIDEO NETWORKS v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS

Civil Action No. 2:10cv248.

807 F.Supp.2d 563 (2011)

ACTIVEVIDEO NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Virginia Inc., and Verizon South Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

August 17, 2011.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nathan Wayne McCutcheon , David Michael Morris , Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, Stephen Edward Noona , Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., Norfolk, VA, Ahren Christian Hsu-Hoffman , Daniel Johnson, Jr. , Dion Michael Bregman , Efrain Staino Flores , Jason Evan Gettleman , Lorraine Marie Casto , Michael Francis Carr , Michael John Lyons , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Brett Michael Schuman , Sheila Jambekar , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Brent Lee Vannorman , Gregory N. Stillman , Hunton & Williams, Norfolk, VA, Brian Mark Buroker , Bradley Thomas Lennie , Justin T. Arbes , Hunton & Williams LLP, Evan Todd Leo , John Christopher Rozendaal , Joseph Solomon Hall , Kenneth Matthew Fetterman , Kfir Ben-Gurion Levy , Kiran S. Raj , Mark Charles Hansen , Michael Eugene Joffre , Michael Kerry Kellogg , Rebecca Ann Beynon , W. Joss Nichols , Wan Joo Kim , Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC, Washington, DC, Caren K. Khoo , John P. Frantz , Leonard Charles Suchyta , Verizon Corporate Resources Group LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ, Henry Braude Gutman , Lisa Heather Rubin , Noah Maxim Leibowitz , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY, Jason Bussey , Jeffrey Eric Ostrow , Patrick Edward King , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RAYMOND A. JACKSON, District Judge.

Before the Court are Defendants', Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Virginia Inc., and Verizon South Inc. (collectively, "Verizon"), Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of Validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,169,542; and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that U.S. Patent No. 7,561,214 is Not Invalid, both...

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