Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the ’111 Patent “does not describe ... a scenario in which, in response to a request, only part of the applet is generated (with a placeholder for the rest
• reviewing petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and rejecting petitioner’s “newly claimed infringement allegations” because, having lost on the prior motion, petitioner could “not now initiate what would amount to a completely new infringement proceeding”
• ipse dixit testimony from Parallel Networks’ expert was insufficient to preclude summary judgment
• “The fact that the client needs to ‘obtain’ information in order to execute, however, confirms that no ‘executable’ or ‘operable’ applet is generated and then transferred from the server to the client, as the patent requires.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).