Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Advanced Video Technologies v. HTC Corporation, No. 16-1476 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1476
Also Docketed
No. 16-1514, No. 16-1515 (consolidated; same document)
Decided
February 27, 2017
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

ADVANCED VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,

BLACKBERRY LTD, BLACKBERRY

CORPORATION, MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC,

AKA MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

2016-1476, 2016-1514, 2016-1515

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Nos. 1:11-cv-06604-CM-RLE, 1:11-cv-08908-CM-RLE, 1:12-cv-00918-CM-RLE, Judge Colleen McMahon.

JUDGMENT

ROBERT WILLIAM MORRIS, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by OJEIKU CHRISTOPHER AISIKU, THOMAS MARTIN SMITH.

2HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendants-appellees HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., also represented by KYLE DAKAI CHEN, MARK R. WEINSTEIN.

JEFFRI A. KAMINSKI, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Blackberry LTD, Blackberry Corporation. Also represented by WILLIAM DEAN COSTON; CHRISTOPHER T. LA TESTA, Baltimore, MD.

FREDERICK LEE WHITMER, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Motorola Mobility, LLC. Also represented by AKARSH BELAGODU, Washington, DC; DAVID CLAY HOLLOWAY, Atlanta, GA; STEVEN MOORE, San Francisco, CA.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 27, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Advanced Video Technologies v. HTC Corporation, No. 16-1476 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-16-01476-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01476-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.