eTool Development, Inc. et al v. National Semiconductor Corporation
| eTool Development, Inc. and eTool Patent Holdings Corporation |
| National Semiconductor Corporation |
| 2:2008cv00196 |
| May 9, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Patent Office |
| Anderson |
| T. John Ward |
| Both |
| Federal Question |
| 35:271 Patent Infringement |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
393
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of orders granting the defendants motions for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the specialty component and formulation limitations of the patent in suit (Dkt. No. 368) is DENIED. Deadline to enter settlement documents set for 8/9/12 Signed by Judge William C. Bryson on 7/31/12. (ehs, )
|
|
Filing
175
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Agreed contruction from the '911 Patent. The parties have agreed to the following constructions, and the Court adopts these constructions as the construction of the Court. Claim Term/Phrase Agreed Construction suppli er specific specialty component a specialty component provided by a particular suppliersupplier specific formformulation having a specific supplier specific specialty compoffer to sell the specialty componentto make available for purchase either dire ctly or from a distributor a specialty component, whether alone or along with other componentsperformance characteristics being substantially consistent with and supplemental to the characteristics of the customer input substantially conform to and a dditional tomatch, matched, matching, corresponding to substantially conform to matching formulations formulations that substantially conform to customer-specified characteristicsserver can match the product formulstored in said server to said set of characteristicsserver can match formulation stored in said server to a set of customer specified characteristics. The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the 919 Patent. The parties are ordered that th ey may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each others claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are ordered to refrain from mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court. Signed by Judge Donald E. Walter on 9/13/11. (ehs, )
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying # 60 motion to transfer venue. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 3/12/10. (ehs, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
