Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al
Case Number:
1:13-cv-00740
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- AMS Trade LLP
- Greenberg Traurig
- Kramer Alberti
- Latham & Watkins
- Morris Manning
- The Office of Craig C. Reilly
- Troutman Pepper
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
November 17, 2015
No Octane Fitness Fees For Capital One In IV Patent Suit
A Virginia federal judge declined Tuesday to grant Capital One attorneys' fees under Octane Fitness, saying that while Intellectual Ventures brought a "weak and problematic" patent infringement lawsuit against the bank, the claims were not "objectively unreasonable or frivolous" and the case could therefore not be declared exceptional.
-
May 07, 2014
Capital One Blasts Intellectual Ventures' 'Sham' IP Suit
Capital One Financial Corp. told a judge Tuesday that Intellectual Ventures Management LLC's unsuccessful patent suit against it was a "sham" and an "extortionate" attempt to get the bank to license other patents, arguing the licensing giant should be forced to pay the bank's legal fees.
-
April 16, 2014
Capital One Escapes Patent Co.'s Online Banking Patent Suit
A Virginia federal judge on Wednesday found in favor of Capital One Financial Corp. in a patent lawsuit brought by a patent holding company over technology for a budgeting database, holding that the two patents-in-suit are invalid because they claim only abstract ideas.