• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
8 results

Shannon v. Omni Logistics LLC.

Docket 3:23-cv-00384, Texas Western District Court (Oct. 16, 2023)
Judge Kathleen Cardone, presiding
Civil Rights - Jobs
DivisionEl Paso
FlagsMOTION_REFERRED
Demand$6,000,000
Cause42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Case Type442 Civil Rights - Jobs
Tags442 Civil Rights, Jobs, 442 Civil Rights, Jobs
Plaintiff Keith Shannon
Defendant Omni Logistics LLC.
Plaintiff Shannon
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Texas Instruments Incorporated

Docket 6:23-cv-00384, Texas Western District Court (May 18, 2023)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsPATENT
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
DeadlinePretrial Conference set for 4/16/2025 before Judge Alan D Albright
DeadlineJury Trial set for 5/7/2025 before Judge Alan D Albright, Jury Selection set for 5/7/2025 before Judge Derek T. Gilliland
Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
Defendant Texas Instruments Incorporated
Counter Defendant ParkerVision, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Stampede Equipment, LLC v. Machinery Equipment Rebuilder, Inc.

Docket 1:23-cv-00384, Texas Western District Court (Apr. 4, 2023)
Judge Robert Pitman, presiding
Contract - Other
DivisionAustin
Demand$200,000
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Type190 Contract - Other
Tags190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other, 190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other
Plaintiff Stampede Equipment, LLC
Defendant Machinery Equipment Rebuilder, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Castaneda

Docket 5:23-cv-00384, Texas Western District Court (Mar. 29, 2023)
Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney, presiding
Forfeit/Penalty - Other
DivisionSan Antonio
Demand$200,000
Cause28:1345 USA Plaintiff
Case Type690 Forfeit/Penalty - Other
Tags690 Forfeit / Penalty, Other, 690 Forfeit / Penalty, Other
Plaintiff United States of America
Defendant Castaneda
Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 66 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MASTER 63 . Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES ...

Document ParkerVision, Inc. v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, 6:23-cv-00384, No. 66 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 26, 2024)
Before the Court is the “SPECIAL MASTERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant filed objections to the Order (ECF No. 65).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the reasoning provided in the Order, the underlying claim construction briefing, and the Defendant’s objections, the Court agrees with the conclusions set forth in the Order and finds the Defendant’s objections unpersuasive.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the objections in ECF No. 65; and ADOPTS the Special Master’s Order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of November 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 10 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 3 Report and Recommendations DENIES ECF 1, MOTION ...

Document Shannon v. Omni Logistics LLC. , 3:23-cv-00384, No. 10 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 22, 2023)
However, federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected.
Plaintiffs are only permitted to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if they “lack the financial resources to pay any part of the filing costs.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988).
Rather, it turns on whether payment of the filing fees would impose an undue hardship on Plaintiff, given his current financial condition.
Overall, Plaintiff has not provided enough information for the Court to determine whether payments for his medical or student debts will prevent him from paying the filing fees.
For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown that payment of filing fees would impose an undue hardship on him.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 7 ORDER GRANTING re 5 MOTION to Substitute Service filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,It is ORDERED ...

Document UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Castaneda, 5:23-cv-00384, No. 7 (W.D.Tex. Jun. 23, 2023)
This case concerns Defendant’s alleged default on his obligations under a pre- litigation Settlement Agreement intended to resolve Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant violated the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq.
(2) in any other manner that, including electronically by social media, email, or other technology, that the statement or other evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.
Accordingly, if a plaintiff’s attempts to serve a defendant in person are unsuccessful, a court may authorize substitute service upon receipt of an affidavit satisfying Rule 106(b).
Plaintiff has agreed to provide notification to the Court by filing a proof of service after sending the Complaint and summons by electronic mail.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States will provide notification to the Court by filing a proof of service after sending the complaint and summons by email.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 3 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120)

Document ParkerVision, Inc. v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, 6:23-cv-00384, No. 3 (W.D.Tex. May. 18, 2023)
Mail Stop 8 Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been filed in the U.S. District Court on the following Trademarks or Patents.
( the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.
Answer Cross Bill Other Pleading
In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search