• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
3 results

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG

Docket 5:15-cv-02101, California Northern District Court (May 8, 2015)
Hon. James Donato, presiding
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6470399; 6895449; 8504746; 8966144
6470399
6895449
85047468966144
Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company
Defendant Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG
cite Cite Docket

No. 1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT against Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG ( Filing fee $ 400, ...

Document Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG, 5:15-cv-02101, No. 1 (N.D.Cal. May. 8, 2015)
Complaint
States Code, § 1 et seq., with a specific remedy sought under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
An actual, substantial, and continuing justiciable controversy exists between HP and Papst that requires a declaration of rights by this Court.
Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Papst is an alien entity and therefore subject to suit in any district.
On March 31, 2008, HP filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this district against Papst seeking a declaration that HP does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 (the “’399 patent”) and 6,895,449 (the “’449 patent”).
Therefore, there exits a substantial controversy between HP and Papst, the parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
cite Cite Document

No. 32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS filed by Hewlett-Packard Company

Document Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG, 5:15-cv-02101, No. 32 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 23, 2015)
Plaintiff HP Inc., formerly Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”),1 and Defendant Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, submit the following stipulation: WHEREAS, pursuant to a September 8, 2015 Order, the Court stayed this case “pending resolution of the parties’ oppositions to the conditional transfer order filed on August 20, 2015 by
1 Once the stay is lifted, HP will file a motion correcting its name resulting from the recent split of Hewlett-Packard Company.
FENWICK & WEST LLP the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation”; WHEREAS, on December 8, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacated its order conditionally transferring the above-captioned matter to In Re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880.
Papst shall respond to the discovery propounded by HP prior to the stay of this matter by January 11, 2016.
5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.
cite Cite Document