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

NEODRON LTD., v. Apple, Inc.

Docket 6:20-cv-00116, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 14, 2020)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsCLOSED, PATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7821425; 7903092; 8749251; 9411472
7821425
790309287492519411472
Plaintiff NEODRON LTD.
Defendant Apple, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

NEODRON LTD., v. LG Electronics, Inc.

Docket 6:20-cv-00118, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 14, 2020)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsCLOSED, PATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7821425; 7903092; 8749251; 9411472
7821425
790309287492519411472
Plaintiff NEODRON LTD.
Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

NEODRON LTD., v. AMAZON.COM. INC.

Docket 6:20-cv-00115, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 14, 2020)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsCLOSED, PATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7821425; 7903092; 8749251
7821425
79030928749251
Plaintiff NEODRON LTD.
Defendant AMAZON.COM. INC.
cite Cite Docket

NEODRON LTD., v. Microsoft Corporation

Docket 6:20-cv-00119, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 14, 2020)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding.
Patent

cite Cite Docket

NEODRON LTD., v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

Docket 6:20-cv-00117, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 14, 2020)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsCLOSED, PATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7821425; 7903092; 8749251
7821425
79030928749251
Plaintiff NEODRON LTD.
Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
cite Cite Docket

No. 15 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Document NEODRON LTD., v. Microsoft Corporation, 6:20-cv-00119, No. 15 (W.D.Tex. Jan. 11, 2021)
On this day, Plaintiff Neodron Ltd., (“Plaintiff”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Defendant”) announced to the Court that they have resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant asserted in this case.
Plaintiff and Defendant have therefore requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant with prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses taxed against the party incurring same.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same.
United States District Judge
cite Cite Document

No. 10 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Case Pending ITC Determination by Apple, Inc

Document NEODRON LTD., v. Apple, Inc., 6:20-cv-00116, No. 10 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 30, 2020)
Motion to Stay Pending ITC Investigation
Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully moves this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 and its inherent powers to control its docket for a stay of all proceedings in the above- captioned case until the determination of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in a parallel proceeding becomes final.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659, district court patent claims that involve the same issues as a parallel ITC proceeding are subject to a mandatory stay.
In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission, but only if such request is made within – (1) 30 days after the party is named as a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, or (2) 30 days after the district court action is filed, whichever is later.
A stay issued under this statute remains in effect during any appeals and “until the Commission proceedings are no longer subject to judicial review.” In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court enter the attached proposed order and stay all proceedings in the Texas action until the determination of the ITC action becomes final, including any appeals and until the Commission proceedings are no longer subject to judicial review.
cite Cite Document

No. 12

Document NEODRON LTD., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 6:20-cv-00118, No. 12 (W.D.Tex. Jan. 4, 2021)

cite Cite Document
1 2 >>