• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
509,465 results

Echologics, LLC et al v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc.

Docket 3:21-cv-01147, California Southern District Court (June 22, 2021)
Judge Marilyn L. Huff, presiding, Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard
Patent
DivisionSan Diego
FlagsCLOSED, ., ENE, PATENT, PROTO, SEALDC
Cause28:1338pt Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent10305178; 10386257; 10881888, 10305178, 10386257, 10881888
Plaintiff Echologics, LLC
Plaintiff Mueller International, LLC
Plaintiff Mueller Canada, Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Zodiac Pool Systems LLC v. Tianjin Wangyuan Environmental Protection and Techn...

Docket 2:20-cv-09085, California Central District Court (Oct. 2, 2020)
Judge George H Wu, presiding, Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon
Patent
DivisionLos Angeles (Western Division)
FlagsACCO, (AFMx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY, MANADR, PROTORD, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Defendant Tianjin Wangyuan Environmental Protection and Technology Co., Ltd.
Counter Claimant Tianjin Wangyuan Environmental Protection and Technology Co., Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Church et al v. State of Missouri et al

Docket 2:17-cv-04057, Missouri Western District Court (Apr. 7, 2017)
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey, presiding
Civil Rights - Other
08/28/2018
... Aaron Scherzer. Defendants by Jacqueline Shipma and Doug Shull. Courtroom Deputy: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered:...
04/17/2018
... Jason Williamson. Defendants by Jacqueline Shipma, Doug Shull, Laura Ellsbury and Mike Pritchett. Courtroom Deputy: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 0...
01/19/2018
... and Govenor Greitens by Mike Pritchett. MSPD Defendants by Jacqueline Shipma. Courtroom Deputy: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Turn Key Wine Brands LLC v. Customvine Corp., et al

Docket 2:16-cv-09088, California Central District Court (Dec. 7, 2016)
Judge R. Gary Klausner, presiding, Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon
Trademark
DivisionLos Angeles (Western Division)
FlagsACCO, TRO, CLOSED, MANADR, PROTORD
DemandPlaintiff
Cause15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Case Type840 Trademark
Tags840 Trademark, 840 Trademark
Plaintiff Turn Key Wine Brand, LLC
Defendant Customvine Corp.
Defendant Penrose Hill, Limited
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Dougherty v. Guild Mortgage Company

Docket 3:16-cv-02909, California Southern District Court (Nov. 29, 2016)
Judge John A. Houston, presiding, Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major
False Claims Act
DivisionSan Diego
FlagsCLOSED, ENE, PROTO
Cause31:3729 False Claims Act - Liability
Case Type375 False Claims Act
Tags375 False Claim Act, 375 False Claim Act
Plaintiff Kevin G. Dougherty
Defendant Guild Mortgage Company
Intervenor United States of America
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 93 Proposed Amended Scheduling Order

Document Echologics, LLC et al v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc., 3:21-cv-01147, No. 93 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 27, 2022)
In light of the current stage of the proceedings, the Court issues the following proposed amended scheduling order set forth below.
Any party that fails to make these disclosures must not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial.
The parties must contact the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case by February 10, 2023, to arrange a date for the settlement conference.
Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
The final pretrial conference and hearing on motions in limine will be held before the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff on Monday, May 15, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. Lead trial counsel must appear in person absent further order of the Court.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 91 ORDER: (1) Denying Defendant's motion for leave to amend answer and counterclaims; and (2) ...

Document Echologics, LLC et al v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc., 3:21-cv-01147, No. 91 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 15, 2022)
Motion to Amend AnswerDenied
Case 3:21-cv-01147-RBM-AHG Document 91 Filed 12/15/22 PageID.2505 Page 5 of 18 on August 30, 2021, but argues that “good cause” exists for it to amend its pleadings because Orbis only discovered the factual basis for its claim of patent misuse via discovery that occurred in October and November of 2022.
When exercising its discretion, “a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), an action may be dismissed for failure to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
[B]y pursuing three applications predicated upon independent initial filings, Plaintiffs have illicitly extended by approximately six years the term during which they can assert the exclusive rights afforded by a patent on that invention.
The Rules “‘are also designed to provide structure to discovery and to enable the parties to move efficiently toward claim construction and the eventual resolution of their dispute.’” Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Oz-Post Int’l, LLC, 411 F. Supp.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 89 ORDER granting 80 Motion to File Documents Under Seal

Document Echologics, LLC et al v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc., 3:21-cv-01147, No. 89 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 14, 2022)
Motion to File DocumentGranted
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access.
The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can show that the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599.
Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
Specifically, Defendant seeks to seal portions of Exhibits K, L, M, N, O, and P to the Declaration of Kathleen R. Geyer because that information has been designated Confidential by Plaintiffs pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>