Litigation Details for Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Noble Corporation plc (S.D. Tex. 2017)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Noble Corporation plc (S.D. Tex. 2017)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2017-01-16 |
| Court | District Court, S.D. Texas | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 28:1338 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | George Carol Hanks Jr. |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
| Parties | NOBLE CORPORATION; NOBLE CORPORATION PLC; NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) INC.; NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) LLC; NOBLE DRILLING AMERICAS LLC; NOBLE DRILLING EXPLORATION COMPANY; NOBLE DRILLING HOLDING LLC; NOBLE DRILLING SERVICES INC.; NOBLE LEASING III (SWITZERLAND) GMBH; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC. | ||
| Patents | 8,940,517; 9,931,336 | ||
| Attorneys | David Lee Terrell; Hector Raul Chavez , III; J. Reid Bumgarner; Jean C Frizzell; John Christopher Reynolds; Lee L Kaplan; Lindsey Hargrove Raspino; Michael Steven McCoy; Robert J McAughan , Jr; Yevgeniy Zilberman | ||
| Firms | Amatong McCoy LLc; Attorney at Law; McAugan Deaver PLLC; Port & Bumgarner LLP; Reynolds Frizzell LLP; Smyser Kaplan & Veselka; Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, LLP; Smyser Kaplan Et Al; Smyser, Kaplan & Veselka, LLP; Yetter Coleman LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Noble Corporation plc
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷ Try a Trial and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Noble Corporation plc
The biologic drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷ Try a Trial and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Noble Corporation plc (S.D. Tex. 2017)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-02 | 177 | Memorandum and Opinion | Technology, Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., 437 Fed. App’x 940, 940–41 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (transferring appeal to the… Licensed Patents. Dkt. 133-1 at p. 5; Dkt. 94 at p. 8. The closest…scope of any claim of the [patents-in-suit]” (Dkt. 133-1 at p. 5; Dkt. 94 at p. 8). Under Diversey and Flex-Foot…Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Industries, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). A term left poorly defined…of Transocean’s patents relating to dual-activity offshore drilling rigs (“the patents-in-suit”). However | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
