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

E.D. Tex.

GeoTag Inc v. Frontier Communications Corp et al, No. 2:10-cv-00265 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2013)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:10-cv-00265, Dkt. No. 472
Decided
February 26, 2013
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Length
68 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court are Plaintiff GeoTag, In c.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 354), Defendants’ response (Dkt. No. 361), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 365). Also before the Court are: Defendant Canon U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Canon’s”) Supplemental Markman Brief (Dkt. No. 383) and Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 399); and a letter brief filed by the “WMA Defendants,” 1 arguing that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are indefinite (Dkt. No. 401), and Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 404). The Court held a hearing on February 12, 2013.