WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al, No. 6:2010cv00521 - Document 470 (E.D. Tex. 2013)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT. Plaintiff shall take nothing from Defendants and all pending motions are DENIED. Defendants' costs of court should be taxed against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 07/16/13. (mll, ) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al Doc. 470 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION WI-LAN INC., Plaintiff, vs. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ET AL., Defendants. WI-LAN INC., Plaintiff, vs. HTC CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CASE NO. 6:10-CV-521 CASE NO. 6:13-CV-252 FINAL JUDGMENT This action was tried by a jury with the undersigned presiding, and the jury has reached a verdict. It is ORDERED that Defendants Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.; Ericsson Inc.; and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson did not infringe the following claims: Claims 2, 5, and of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,326; Claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,195,327; and Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,222,819. Dockets.Justia.com It is also ORDERED that Defendants HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; Exedea Inc.; Sony Mobile Communications AB; and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. did not infringe the following claims: Claims 2 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,211. It is further ORDERED that the following claims are invalid: Claims 2, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,326; Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,222,819; and Claims 2 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,211. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Wi-Lan Inc. take nothing from Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.; Ericsson Inc.; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; Exedea Inc.; Sony Mobile Communications AB; and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) and that all pending motions are DENIED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants’ costs of court should be taxed against Plaintiff. The parties are directed to the Standing Order Regarding Bill of Costs on the Court’s website. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of July, 2013. __________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
