10 examples of companies that defended ChatGPT
Here are 10 more examples of successful defenses against patent infringement claims during a cease and desist:
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.: Samsung was accused of infringing on Apple's design patents related to the iPhone and iPad. Samsung argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Samsung, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Intel Corp. v. Via Technologies Inc.: Via Technologies claimed that Intel had infringed on patents related to microprocessors. Intel argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Intel, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Dolby Laboratories Inc. v. Lucent Technologies Inc.: Lucent Technologies was accused of infringing on patents related to digital audio encoding and decoding. Lucent argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Lucent, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Columbia Sportswear North America Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories Inc.: Seirus was accused of infringing on patents related to cold-weather gear. Seirus argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Seirus, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.: Qualcomm claimed that Broadcom had infringed on patents related to wireless communication technology. Broadcom argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Broadcom, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
TiVo Corp. v. EchoStar Corp.: EchoStar was accused of infringing on patents related to digital video recording technology. EchoStar argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of TiVo, finding that the patents were valid and infringed by EchoStar's products. However, EchoStar was able to modify their products to avoid infringing on the patents.
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC: First Quality was accused of infringing on patents related to absorbent products such as diapers. First Quality argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of First Quality, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Research in Motion Ltd. v. Visto Corp.: Visto claimed that Research in Motion had infringed on patents related to mobile email technology. Research in Motion argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Research in Motion, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Blackboard Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc.: Desire2Learn was accused of infringing on patents related to online education technology. Desire2Learn argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of Desire2Learn, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products.
Monsanto Technology LLC v. DuPont Pioneer: DuPont Pioneer was accused of infringing on patents related to genetically modified crop technology. DuPont Pioneer argued that the patents were invalid and that their products did not infringe on the patents. The court ruled in favor of DuPont Pioneer, finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by their products