Litigation

Barnes & Noble Inc. v. LSI Corporation

3:11-cv-02709

Auto-generating section 1 of 4: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: N.D. Cal.
Filed: 2011-06-06

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Barnes & Noble Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ LSI Corporation

Summary

Barnes & Noble Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action against LSI Corporation et al. in N.D. Cal. over U.S. Patent 5,870,087; outcome not established.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 5870087-3-11-cv-02709 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.
AI prior art search tools: a 2026 buyer's guide for defendants
AI doesn't replace a patent attorney's judgment. It does replace the search step that used to cost $20,000 and take three weeks.
§ 285 attorney-fee shifting in practice
§ 285 isn't a guaranteed remedy. It's a high-effort, high-evidence tool that pays off occasionally and dramatically — turning a $3M defense expense into a $3M plaintiff bill.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
Joint defense groups: economics, formation, and the privilege framework
An NPE sues twenty defendants on one patent. Solo, each faces $3-5M in defense costs. Pooled into a joint defense group, the per-defendant number drops to $200-500K. The economics only work if the privilege framework is set up correctly.

All resources →