From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs. Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Aug 10, 2012
475 F. App'x 334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding four month delay not diligent

Summary of this case from Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

2012-1110 2012-1134

08-10-2012

TRANS VIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONY ELECTRONICS INC., SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC., SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC., and SONY CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

PER CURIAM

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 09-CV-3304, Judge Edward M. Chen.

JUDGMENT

JOHN F. SWEENEY, Locke Lord LLP, of New York, New York, argued for the plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were ZACHARY D. SILBERSHER and JOSEPH A. FARCO. Of counsel was RENE A. VAZQUEZ, Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC, of Marlborough, Connecticut.

WALTER E. HANLEY, JR. Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, of New York, New York, argued defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were JOHN FLOCK, MEGAN WHYMAN OLESEK, and BRETT N. WATKINS.

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

PER CURIAM (PROST, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

________________________

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Summaries of

Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs. Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Aug 10, 2012
475 F. App'x 334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

finding four month delay not diligent

Summary of this case from Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

finding that a motion to amend was taken in bad faith where, after the court granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff moved to amend "as a last-ditch attempt to avoid the case being dismissed in its entirety."

Summary of this case from Dauth v. Convenience Retailers, LLC

denying leave to amend the complaint to add a new patent-infringement claim because the motion had been made only after an adverse claim-construction order had been issued against the patentee and after briefing had closed on the competitor's motion for summary judgment on the patentee's existing claim, the patentee had made a tactical decision not to include the "new" claim at the outset of the litigation and shifted its strategy only after the "writing was on the wall," and the motion had been taken as a "last-ditch" attempt to avoid dismissal of the action in its entirety

Summary of this case from CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin

denying motion to amend two years into case and almost a month after summary judgment fully briefed

Summary of this case from Young v. Giant Food Stores, LLC
Case details for

Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TRANS VIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONY ELECTRONICS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Aug 10, 2012

Citations

475 F. App'x 334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Young v. Giant Food Stores, LLC

To counter this proposition, Giant relies on a series of inapposite cases that simply stand for the…

United States ex rel. Complin v. N.C. Baptist Hosp.

Vincoli's evolving, contradictory allegations regarding MedCost suggest bad faith. See Standard Pac. of the…

14 Citing Cases