• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 69-83 of 56,463 results

NantHealth, Inc. v. Omixy Ltd

Docket 92069709, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Sept. 28, 2018)
Case TypeCancellation
MarksOMICS CORE, OMYX, OMIXY, OMICS, OMIX
Respondent Omixy Ltd
Petitioner NantHealth, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Sergio Arreguin, et al vs. Mora & Associates IIS INC

Docket DC-18-14669, Texas State, Dallas County, 193rd District Court (Sept. 26, 2018)
BRIDGETT WHITMORE, presiding
Division193rd District
Case TypeCNTR CNSMR COM DEBT
TagsCntr Cnsmr Com Debt, Debt, Collections, Civil
Plaintiff Sergio Arreguin
Plaintiff Berenice Arreguin
Defendant Mora & Associates IIS INC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Mountville Mills, Inc.

Docket 91243321, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 29, 2018)
Case TypeOpposition
MarksBUNGALOW, BUNGALOW FLOORING PET
Applicant Mountville Mills, Inc.
Opposer Restoration Hardware, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

NantOmics, LLC v. Paradigm Diagnostics, Inc.

Docket 92069375, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 24, 2018)
Case TypeCancellation
MarksPARADIGM, GPS PARADIGM
Respondent Paradigm Diagnostics, Inc.
Petitioner NantOmics, LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

The University of Texas System et al v. Alliantgroup, LP et al

Docket 4:18-mc-02271, Texas Southern District Court (Aug. 17, 2018)
Judge David Hittner, presiding
DivisionHouston
FlagsMOTREF
CauseMotion to Compel
Plaintiff The University of Texas System
Plaintiff The University of Houston System
Defendant AlliantGroup LP
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Reflex Media, Inc. et al v. RichMeetBeautiful Holding LTD. et al

Docket 2:18-cv-01476, Nevada District Court (Aug. 8, 2018)
Judge Andrew P. Gordon, presiding, Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah
Trademark
DivisionLas Vegas
FlagsSTAYED, AO-120/121
Demand$75,000
Cause15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Case Type840 Trademark
Tags840 Trademark, 840 Trademark
Plaintiff Reflex Media, Inc.
Plaintiff Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD.
Defendant RichMeetBeautiful Holding LTD.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Nike Inc, Plaintiff(s) vs. Montpellier LLC, Defendant(s)

Docket A-18-777645-C, Nevada State, Clark County, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 14 (July 13, 2018)
Adriana Escobar, presiding
Case TypeOther Title to Property
TagsOther, Title to Property
Defendant Montpellier LLC
Plaintiff Nike Inc
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

RH US, LLC v. Hunter, Yakita

Docket 91241817, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (June 14, 2018)
Case TypeOpposition
MarksRH, R-H RETAIL - HUNTER, RH RESTORATION HARDWARE
Applicant Hunter, Yakita
Opposer RH US, LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Docket 2:18-cv-00953, Nevada District Court (May 24, 2018)
Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, presiding, Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr
Patent
DivisionLas Vegas
FlagsCLOSED, AO-120/121
Demand$75,000
Cause15:1126 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
Defendant Apple, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Scott Pelley P.C.; Scott Pelley Individually; and the Pelley Family Limited Partnersh...

Docket 05-18-00550-CV, Texas State, 5th Court of Appeals (May 11, 2018)
Case TypeContract
TagsContract, Civil
Appellee Michael C. Wynne and John Hunter Smith
Appellant Scott Pelley P.C.; Scott Pelley Individually; and the Pelley Family LP
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

MapR Technologies, Inc. v. MapD Technologies, Inc.

Docket 91240170, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 21, 2018)
Case TypeOpposition
MarksMAPR, MAPD
Applicant MapD Technologies, Inc.
Opposer MapR Technologies, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 26 ORDER Granting 23 Stipulation for Extension of Time (Second Request) re 6 Motion for Preliminary ...

Document TP-LINK SYSTEMS INC. v. SHENZHEN CUDY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 2:25-cv-00057, No. 26 (D.Nev. Mar. 5, 2025)
Motion to Extend TimeGranted
Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. (“TP-Link”) and defendant Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Cudy Technology”) (collectively the “parties”) stipulate that the deadline for Shenzhen Cudy Technology to respond to TP-Link’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) be extended an additional 14 days until March 21, 2025 from the currently ordered deadline of March 7, 2025.
On Friday, February 28, new lead and local counsel for Shenzhen Cudy Technology, 3938114_1 21866.1 Page 1 of 2 Steptoe LLP and Kaempfer Crowell, entered appearances in this case (ECF No. 18).
Since being engaged, Shenzhen Cudy Technology’s new counsel, Steptoe LLP and Kaempfer Crowell, have reached an agreement with TP-Link to streamline service of process and obviate the need for TP-Link’s motion for alternative service of summons and complaint (ECF No. 13).
In exchange, TP-Link has agreed to modify this opposition deadline to allow new counsel for Shenzhen Cudy Technology sufficient time to respond to the preliminary injunction motion (ECF No. 6) and develop a more fulsome preliminary injunction record.
210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Kristopher L. Reed (pro hac vice) 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Attorneys for Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. Robert McCoy, No. 9121 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 STEPTOE LLP Michael J. Allan (pro hac vice) 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Defendant Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co., Ltd.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Village on the Bay, LLC

Docket 91239525, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 14, 2018)
Case TypeOpposition
MarksVENETIAN VILLAGE, VENETIAN, THE VENETIAN RESORT HOTEL CASINO, THE VENETIAN
Applicant Village on the Bay, LLC
Opposer Las Vegas Sands Corp.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 16 ORDER Granting 15 Stipulation for Extension of Time

Document TP-LINK SYSTEMS INC. v. SHENZHEN CUDY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 2:25-cv-00057, No. 16 (D.Nev. Feb. 26, 2025)
Motion to Extend TimeGranted
(First Request) DEFENDANT SHENZHEN CUDY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (“Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, the law firm WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, and PLAINTIFF TP-LINK SYSTEMS INC., by and through its attorneys, the law firm SNELL & WILMER LLP, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the date for Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Alternative Service of Summons and Complaint for two weeks (14) days, to March 7, 2025.
The undersigned counsel was just contacted and retained, and upon review of the docket, noticed the docket identified deadlines for responses for the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service of Summons and Complaint (ECF No. 13).
Counsel needs additional time to review the filed documents and prepare a proper response, and thus, asked for a courtesy extension of two weeks, which Plaintiff granted.
This stipulation is not intended to be a waiver of any defenses for Defendant in connection with the motions.
127561925.1 Las Vegas, NV 89169 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 For the foregoing reasons, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service of Summons and Complaint (ECF No. 13) from February 21, 2025 to March 7, 2025.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al v. Target Corporation

Docket 3:18-cv-00770, California Northern District Court (Feb. 5, 2018)
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, presiding
Patent
DivisionSan Francisco
FlagsADRMOP, AO279, CLOSED
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Restoration Hardware, Inc.
Plaintiff RH US, LLC
Defendant Target Corporation
cite Cite Docket
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... >>