Hewlett-Packard has filed an appeal to a District Court decision announced last month that the company would have to pay Cornell $53.5 million for patent infringement, according to the Wall Street Journal. In order to fight the case, Cupertino, Calif. based H.P. said that it expects to earn one to two cents less per share in its second fiscal quarter of the year, according to the Sacramento Business Journal. This comes after U.S. District Judge Randall Radar reduced the amount H.P. owed Cornell from $184 million, as decided by a Jury last June.
U.S. District Judge Randall Rader overturned a previous jury decision when he ordered Hewlett-Packard to pay Cornell $53.5 million in a lawsuit that the University filed against the company for infringing Cornell’s patent on a data processing unit in January 2002. Despite the $53.5 million Cornell is due to receive, the University planned on receiving $184 million from the lawsuit following a jury’s decision in June 2008.
The dispute was over an innovative data processing unit — developed by a Cornell researcher in the late 1980’s — that was capable of performing multiple functions at once, unlike its predecessors. The processor, which was issued a patent in 1989, enabled computers to function faster and more effectively.
An apparent breakdown in communication among city officials may have led Ithaca police officers to enforce the city’s noise ordinance against an evangelical preacher last August in a way that had previously been deemed unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
The “misunderstanding” will now cost the city $10,000 as part of a settlement it reached on Feb. 12 with Syracuse resident James Deferio, who sued the city last November, claiming that the city violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Vanginderen, a practicing California lawyer who is representing himself in court, filed a notice of appeal of Southern California District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz’s June 3 ruling in favor of the University.
On June 3, a federal judge in California dismissed a former student’s $1-million libel suit against the University. By dismissing the case, the court avoided ruling on some of the first amendment issues that the lawsuit had raised.
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted Cornell’s special motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed last October by Kevin Vanginderen ’83, who alleged that a 1983 Cornell Chronicle article describing his involvement with a string of on-campus burglaries was libelous and constituted an illegal public disclosure of private facts.
For the past two decades, Cornell has been embroiled in a tense legal conflict with Hewlett-Packard, Co., over a dispute involving HP’s use of technology developed in Cornell’s processors to dramatically increase the performance of their computers.
The alumnus who sued Cornell last year for defamation and libel has filed additional litigation against the University. In a $10 million lawsuit filed April 8, Kevin Vanginderen ’83 alleges that Cornell published libelous information, placed him in a false light, publicly disclosed private facts about him and intruded into his private affairs.
Some of Vanginderen’s latest complaints relate to a 1983 Cornell Chronicle article — digitized and placed online last year by the University — that described his involvement with several thefts on campus. After finding the article online last year through Google, he sued the University for libel and defamation for the first time.