Litigation Details for Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2015-03-06 |
| Court | District Court, E.D. Texas | Date Terminated | 2018-08-24 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
| Parties | ALCATEL-LUCENT ENTERPRISE USA INC.; ALCATEL-LUCENT HOLDINGS, INC.; ALCATEL-LUCENT S.A; ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.; AMX, LLC; CHRIMAR HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.; DAVID KEYZER; HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY; JAMES KNOWLES | ||
| Patents | 10,485,902 | ||
| Attorneys | Adrienne Elizabeth Dominguez; Allen Franklin Gardner; Brent Allen Hawkins; Brian K Buss; Christopher D Bright; Christopher Needham Cravey; Danny Lloyd Williams; David Curtis Schulte; David H Bluestone; David Kent Wooten; David Michael Keyzer; Earl Glenn Thames , Jr; Eric W Benisek; Greg Harlan Parker; Hersh Hemang Mehta; James W Knowles; Jeffrey T Lindgren; Jennifer Haltom Doan; Justin S. Cohen; Kyung Tai Kim; Leisa Talbert Peschel; Matthew Richard Rodgers; Michael E Jones; Richard C Vasquez; Richard Lawrence Wynne , Jr; Richard W Hoffmann; Robert S McArthur; Stephen C Steinberg; Teri Hong-Phuc Nguyen; Vishal Hemant Patel | ||
| Firms | Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing PC - Houston; Allen Gardner Law, PLLC; Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and Nagelberg LLP; Buss & Benefield PLLC - Houston; Holland & Knight LLP - Dallas; Jackson Walker LLP Houston; Law Office of David Keyzer; McDermott Will & Emery - Irvine; McDermott Will & Emery LLP-San Jose; McDermott Will & Emery-Chicago; Parker Justiss PC; Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation; Reising Ethington PC; Thompson & Knight - Dallas; Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren LLP - Walnut Creek; Vasquez Benisek and Lindgren LLP; Williams Morgan, PC | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Biologic Drugs cited in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A.
The biologic drug covered by the patent cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-21 | 507 | Memorandum & Opinion | infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,115,012 (“the ’012 Patent”), 8,902,760 (“the ’760 Patent”), 8,942,107 (“…(“the ’107 Patent”), and 9,019,838 (“the ’838 Patent”) (“patents- in-suit”)). This case proceeded through… (Doc. No. 481.) ALE filed an appeal. (Doc. No. 485.) Without deciding the issues on the merits on appeal… 60 of the ’012 Patent were not invalid; Claims 1, 5, 72, and 103 of the ’107 Patent were not invalid… 145 of the ’760 Patent were not invalid, and Claims 1, 7, and 26 of the ’838 Patent were not invalid | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
