This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Internet Advertising Technologies

Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.

Published: May 19, 2011 | Result Date: Feb. 26, 2011 |

Case number: 2:2007-cv-00403 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Texas


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert M. Parker

Charles Ainsworth

Robert C. Bunt
(Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC)

Andrew T. Gorham

Sidney C. Capshaw III

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

Daymon J. Rambin

J. Robert Chambers

Paul J. Linden

Adam G. Pugh

Gregory M. Utter

Warren J. Sefton


Defendant

David T. Pritikin
(Sidley Austin LLP)

Roger B. Craft

Eric H. Findlay

David A. Perlson
(Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)

Charles K. Verhoeven
(Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)

Amy H. Candido
(Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati)

Jennifer H. Doan
(Haltom & Doan)

Nicholas H. Patton

Robert W. Schroeder III

Brian C. Cannon
(Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)

Joshua R. Thane
(Haltom & Doan)

Matthew D. Powers
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

Yen P. Nguyen
(California Dept. of Justice)

Andrew L. Perito
(Durie Tangri LLP)

Peter Sandel

Danielle Rosenthal

Rebecca E. Fett

Bryan K. Anderson
(Office of the Santa Clara County Counsel)

Richard Cederoth

Steven C. Malin

Antonio R. Sistos
(Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)

Emily C. O'Brien

Rebecca Netter

Laura L. Kolb

Douglas E. Lumish
(Latham & Watkins LLP)


Facts

Paid Search Engine Tools filed a patent infringement claim against Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft. The lawsuit related to U.S. Patent No 7,043,450 involving Internet advertising technologies.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:

Result

The court ruled that all but two dependent claims were invalid for anticipation in light of prior art. Thus, it ruled in favor of all defendants. Further, plaintiff later dropped its two remaining claims.


#127494

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390