• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
241,004 results

Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al

Docket 1:18-cv-07003, New York Southern District Court (Aug. 3, 2018)
Judge John G. Koeltl, presiding
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
08/06/2018
... Notice to attorney Timothy M. Kolman. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Jury Demand code n (None); County code New York;. The following correction(s) h...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 176 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 175 Notice of Appeal, filed by Monib Zirvi, Matthew ...

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 176 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2021)
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of December, two thousand twenty.
Plaintiffs-appellants Monib Zirvi, Matthew Lubin, Maria Kempe, and Norman Gerry ("plaintiffs") appeal from the district court's judgment, entered January 15, 2020, dismissing their second amended complaint (the "SAC") against defendants- appellees Jay T. Flatley, David R. Walt, Stephen P.A. Fodor, Kevin Gunderson, Jian Bing Fan, Mark Chee, Robin M. Silva, John R. Stuelpnagel, Affymetrix, Applied Biosystems,
The district court correctly held that the 2006 proceeding and 2010 lawsuit "put the plaintiffs in this case on inquiry, if not actual, notice."
Joint App'x 465 (district court order compiling cases applying accrual rules to breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage, as examples).
In light of the public information available to plaintiffs by 2010, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to equitably toll the relevant statutes of limitations.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 174 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 173 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Affymetrix, Applied Biosystems, Illumina ...

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 174 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020)
Motion for Judgment
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated January 14, 2020, the plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
Because the plaintiffs have amended the Complaint twice before, and because further amendments would be futile, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties.
To the extent not addressed specifically in the order, the arguments are either moot or without merit; accordingly, the case is closed.
Dated: New York, New York January 15, 2020
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 173 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 164 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss ...

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 173 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2020)
──────────────────────────────────── JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: In the Second Amended Complaint (the “Complaint” or “SAC”), the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have orchestrated a wide-ranging conspiracy over the past twenty-five years to steal the plaintiffs’ trade secrets consisting of proprietary discoveries related to the encoding and decoding of DNA.
The defendants are scientists and businesspeople Jay Flatley, David Walt, Stephen Fodor, Kevin Gunderson, Jian-Bing Fan, Mark Chee, and John Stueplnagel, a patent lawyer Robin Silva, and biotechnology companies Affymetrix, P.E.
Fodor then allegedly enlisted Affymetrix employees, the defendants Mark Chee, Jian-Bing Fan, and Kevin Gunderson, to begin filing patent applications based on the technologies and ideas described in the grant proposal.
The plaintiffs allege that they could not have discovered the defendants’ actions sooner because the defendants had taken great pains to cover their tracks by filing patents under various names and using different variations and combinations of technical terms in order to disguise the scheme of theft and fraud.
Second, the existence of the “clear and unmistakable marker for the theft of Dr. Zirvi’s trade secret” that the Illumina defendants allegedly included in some of their patent applications likewise imposed upon the plaintiffs a duty of reasonable diligence, the failure of which undermines their argument for equitable tolling.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 167 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 166 Motion for Jay I. Alexander to Appear Pro Hac ...

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 167 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2019)
Motion to Appear Pro Hac ViceGranted
The motion of JAY I. ALEXANDER for admission to practice pro hac vice in the above captioned action is granted.
Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the Bar of the District of Columbia and his contact information is as follows: Jay I. Alexander Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth St., N.W.
All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
SO ORDERED this~ay oft2~, 2019 by:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 162 ORDER granting 161 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. application Granted

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 162 (S.D.N.Y. May. 2, 2019)
Motion to FileGranted
ByECF May 1, 2019 Honorable John G. Koeltl Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York NY 10007-1312 Re: Zirvi et.
al., Case No. 18-cv-07003-JGK Dear Judge Koeltl: We write on behalf of all Defendants in the above-captioned matter to request permission to file an oversize reply brief in the further support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 141 ).
By Order dated March 6, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants' consent request to file a joint brief in support of the motion to dismiss of no more than 45 pages in length, (Dkt. 132), and by Order dated April I 0, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' consent request to file an opposition brief of 45 pages, (Dkt. 151 ).
In order to address the arguments made in Plaintiffs' opposition, Defendants respectfully request permission to submit a reply brief of no more than 18 pages in length.
Attorneys for Defendants Illumina, Inc., Jay Flatley, David Walt, Kevin Gunderson, Jian-Bing Fan, Robin M Silva and John R. Stuelpnagel.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 160 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 159 Letter request for permission to join the previously appearing ...

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 160 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2019)
Motion for Joinder
Covington 8.- Burling LLP The New York Times Building 520 Eighth Avenue NewYoi'k, NY10018-1405
(11., Case No. 18-cv—070 3-JGK Iii-x“ : a] Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
Dr. Chee was recently served with the Second Amended Complaint in this action, and has retained Covington & Burling to represent him.
1 w1ite to respectfully request that the Court gramr.ChMQWjointheDefendantsL Motion to Dismiss the_S_econd Amended CW1)” 14]), filed with the Court on.Match 15, 2019and that the arguments in supp01t of this motion set forthin Defendants’ Opening MEmo1andum of Lawin Support of Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 142) be deemed made by and applicable to Dr. Chee.
We understand from Plaintiffs” counsel that Dr. Chee was served with the Second Amended Complaint on March 31, 2019, establishing April 22, 2019 as the date by which Dr. Chee is 1equired to answe1, plead, o1 otheiwise move with respect to the Second Amended .... mm,
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 151 ORDER granting 150 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Document Zirvi et al v. Flatley et al, 1:18-cv-07003, No. 151 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2019)
Motion to FileGranted
HonorableJohnG.Koeitl United States Dishict Court Southern District ofNew York Daniel Patrick Moynjhen United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007—1312 ‘ 6/ / 4 / / if / £2?
Egg, g g“ D 3 Li “’ “ RE: Monib Zirvi et al. vs. Ja T. Flatle et al. No. 1:18—cv—0’7003—JGK Letter Motion to Exceed Page Limitation Dear Judge Koeltl: I write on behalf ofthe Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter.
On March 6, 2019, the Com granted the Defendants’ request for an increase to forty—five pages for flieir Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint Plaintiffs, having drafted the bulk of their reply, now respectfillly request an equivalent increase given the complexity ofmthe issuesflflfllflfld.
Accordingly, with the consent of all parties, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to grant this request and so endorse this letter.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs All Counsel of Record via.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>