Uniloc USA, Inc., et al v. Microsoft Corp., et al 
| Plaintiffs: |
Uniloc USA, Inc and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited |
| Defendant: |
Microsoft Corporation |
| Counter Claimant: |
Microsoft Corporation |
| Counter Defendants: |
Uniloc USA, Inc and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited |
| |
| Case Number: |
1:2003cv00440 |
| Filed: |
September 26, 2003 |
| |
| Court: |
Rhode Island District Court |
| Office: |
Providence Office |
| County: |
Providence |
| Presiding Judge: |
Judge William E Smith |
| Referring Judge: |
Magistrate Judge David L. Martin |
| |
| Nature of Suit: |
Intellectual Property - Patent |
| Cause: |
35:271 Patent Infringement |
| Jurisdiction: |
Federal Question |
| Jury Demanded By: |
Both |
| |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|
| September 29, 2009 | 413 | JUDGMENT in favor of Microsoft Corporation against Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 9/29/2009. (Smith, Rana) |
| September 29, 2009 | 412 | DECISION AND ORDER Microsoft's Motion forJudgment as a Matter of Law or, In the Alternative, For a New Trial or Remittitur (Doc. No. 371) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Uniloc's Motion for an Award of Enhanced Damages, for Prejudgm ent and Postjudgment Interest, and for a Permanent Injunction (Doc. No.368) is DENIED AS MOOT. Both Motions to Amend/Correct Judgment (Doc. Nos. 367, 370) and Microsoft's Motion to Strike Improper Matter from Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. No. 392) are DENIED AS MOOT. The verdict of the jury is VACATED. JUDGMENT shall enter for the Defendant Microsoft. So Ordered by Judge William E Smith on 9/29/2009. (Smith, Rana) |
| March 16, 2009 | 322 | ORDER on Motions in Limine and Trial Management Issues: denying 217 Motion in Limine; denying 220 Motion ; granting in part 234 Motion in Limine; denying 235 Motion in Limine; denying 236 Motion in Limine; denying 237 Motion in Limine; gr anting 238 Motion in Limine; denying 239 Motion in Limine; denying 240 Motion in Limine; denying 241 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 242 Motion in Limine; denying 243 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 244 Motion in Limine; denying 245 Motion in Limine; denying 246 Motion in Limine; granting in part 247 Motion in Limine; granting in part 249 Motion in Limine; denying 298 Motion to Bifurcate. So Ordered by Judge William E Smith on 3/16/2009. (Smith, Rana) |
Last Document Downloaded: April 8, 2010 10:46:50 PDT
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to
PACER is required.