Litigation Details for The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited (C.D. Cal. 2016)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2016-05-26 |
Court | District Court, C.D. California | Date Terminated | 2020-08-03 |
Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | George H. Wu |
Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | Alicia G. Rosenberg |
Parties | AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED; BROADCOM LIMITED; CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION; THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | ||
Patents | 10,597,670; 10,609,929; 10,626,100; 10,626,151; 6,207,858; 6,930,093; 7,132,554; 7,648,702; 7,807,364; 7,816,323; 7,892,563; 7,951,786; 7,956,198; 7,964,183; 7,964,567; 8,007,790; 8,008,003; 8,013,002; 8,034,906; 8,461,101; 8,461,137; 8,563,269; 8,574,855; 8,609,112; 8,609,113; 8,609,673; 8,673,923; 8,778,340; 8,790,899; 8,900,582; 8,900,589; 8,956,822; 8,969,024; 9,028,833; 9,034,907; 9,073,858; 9,078,892; 9,078,929; 9,079,953; 9,173,939; 9,198,954; 9,198,966; 9,213,038; 9,226,961; 9,238,657; 9,504,655; 9,555,001; 9,914,802; 9,969,786 | ||
Attorneys | Aaron Shawn Thompson; Andrew S DeCarlow; Brian P Biddinger; Brian W Nolan; Charles McLean Stiernberg , Jr; Cliff Allan Maier; Deepa Acharya; Derek L Shaffer; Duane David Hough; Edward J DeFranco; Elizabeth D Mann; Elspeth V Hansen; Heather Elizabeth Belville; James L Quarles , III; James M Dowd; James R Asperger; Jason Francis Choy; Jordan R Jaffe; Joseph J Mueller; Kevin P B Johnson; Lance L Yang; Margaret Hsiao-Shia Shyr; Mark D Selwyn; Mary V Sooter; Michael Hal Smith; Michael J Malecek; Ognjen Zivojnovic; Peter E Root; Rachael Lynn Ballard McCracken; Richard A Goldenberg; Ron Hagiz; Seung Woo Hur; Todd M Briggs; Valerie Roddy; Victoria F Maroulis; William C Price; Zhaoxin Yin | ||
Firms | Elspeth v Hansen; Mayer Brown LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP | ||
Link to Docket | External link to docket |
Small Molecule Drugs cited in The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited
Biologic Drugs cited in The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited
The biologic drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
---|---|---|---|---|
2020-02-28 | 2138 | willing [3] - 4:23, LIMITED [1] - 1:8 8:3, 8:4 reported [1] - 8:11…2016 3 August 2020 2:16-cv-03714 830 Patent Both District Court, C.D. California | External link to document | |
2020-04-06 | 2165 | Permanent Injunction | chips infringed the patents-in-suit. 19 After the case was filed, Apple filed ten inter partes review…U.S. at 655 n. 10 (a prejudgment interest award should not 9 “undercompensates the patent owner”, thereby…January 29, 2020, Defendants have 10 continued to infringe Caltech’s patents by selling the accused products… decisions 10 determining that the asserted references were not material to patentability. Yet 11 Defendants… same outcome 10 as to the ’710 and ’032 Patents”). After multiple rounds of briefing, the Court 11 | External link to document |
2020-04-07 | 2167 | chips infringed the patents-in-suit. 19 After the case was filed, Apple filed ten inter partes review…. at 655 n. 10 (a prejudgment interest award should not 9 “undercompensates the patent owner”, thereby…January 29, 2020, Defendants have 10 continued to infringe Caltech’s patents by selling the accused products…decisions 10 determining that the asserted references were not material to patentability. Yet 11 Defendants… same outcome 10 as to the ’710 and ’032 Patents”). After multiple rounds of briefing, the Court 11 | External link to document | |
2020-05-01 | 2179 | Response in Opposition to Motion | ............... 10 23 Bianco v. Globus Medical, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 929 (E.D. Tex. 2014)…that the 9 [asserted] patent was valid and was being infringed”).12 10 Third, Caltech attempts…raised … in an IPR petition” (and, thus, the Patent Office 10 had never addressed its disclosure or materiality…Bianco v. Globus Med., Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 7 929, 933 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Bryson, J.); Soverain Software…Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Cal. 2009)................. | External link to document |
2020-05-15 | 2201 | Reply (Motion related) | Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 3 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................…them.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing 18 Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1212-13 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“a patentee …relief as this Court finds just and proper”); Finjan, 626 F.3d 7 at 1212-13 (finding no waiver to supplemental… v. Toyota Motor Corp., 609 7 F. Supp. 2d 620, 626-27 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (“Injunction or no injunction…substantive patent law and also with respect to certain procedural issues 17 pertaining to patent law.” | External link to document |
>Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |