• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
3,464 results

Eagle View Technologies et al v. GAF Materials LLC

Docket 2:22-cv-00215, Utah District Court (Mar. 28, 2022)
Judge Ted Stewart, presiding, Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Patent
DivisionCentral
Flags(b)(1)(A), MAG, JURY, OPEN_MJ, PATENT, TRANS_IN
Cause35:0271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10528960; 10685149; 8078436; 8145578; 8170840; 8209152; 8542880; 8670961; 8818770; 9129376; 9514568
8078436
81455788170840820915285428808670961881877091293769514568
Plaintiff Eagle View Technologies
Plaintiff Pictometry International
Defendant GAF Materials LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.

Docket IPR2022-01090, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 1, 2022)
Garth Baer, Russell Cass, Thomas Giannetti, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8078436
Patent Owner Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
Petitioner Nearmap US, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al v. GAF MATERIALS LLC

Docket 1:21-cv-10669, New Jersey District Court (May 4, 2021)
Judge Renee Marie Bumb, presiding, Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King
Patent
DivisionCamden
FlagsCLOSED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10528960; 10685149; 8078436; 8145578; 8170840; 8209152; 8542880; 8670961; 8818770; 9129376; 9514568
8078436
81455788170840820915285428808670961881877091293769514568
Plaintiff EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Plaintiff PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.
Defendant GAF MATERIALS LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Eagle View Technologies et al v. Nearmap US

Docket 2:21-cv-00283, Utah District Court (May 4, 2021)
Judge Ted Stewart, presiding, Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Patent
DivisionCentral
Flags(b)(1)(A), MAG, JURY, OBJMAG, PATENT
Cause35:0271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10528960; 10671648; 10685149; 8078436; 8145578; 8170840; 8209152; 8542880; 8593518; 8670961; 8818770; 9129376; 9135737; 9182657; 9514568
8078436
81455788170840820915285428808593518867096188187709129376913573791826579514568
DeadlineNOTICE OF HEARING:Claim Construction Hearing set for 5/7/2025 at 09:00 AM in Rm 8.300 before Judge Ted Stewart., Hearing set for 5/7/2025 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Ted Stewart in Room 8.300.
Plaintiff Eagle View Technologies
Plaintiff Pictometry International
Defendant Nearmap US
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 463 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part 418 Joint Motion to Set Claim Construction ...

Document Eagle View Technologies et al v. Nearmap US, 2:21-cv-00283, No. 463 (D.Utah Mar. 31, 2025)
Motion for Claim ConstructionGranted
Case No. 2:21-CV-283-TS-DAO District Judge Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Set Claim Construction Hearing.1 The parties dispute the proper construction of specified claim terms in the 13 asserted patents at issue in this case.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ respective claim construction briefing,2 the Court finds a hearing will be materially helpful to the Court on eight of the disputed claim terms and will, accordingly, grant the Motion in part.
The Court will defer to the parties on the order in which the terms are presented.
Finally, the Court requests that the technology tutorial be submitted in accordance with LPR 4.5, as opposed to a live presentation.
ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Set Claim Construction Hearing (Docket No. 418) is GRANTED in part.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 447 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL RELATED ...

Document Eagle View Technologies et al v. Nearmap US, 2:21-cv-00283, No. 447 (D.Utah Sep. 10, 2024)
Motion to SealPartial
Overall, the redacted portions of the motion and opposition contain no confidential information regarding specific terms of the third-party agreements, and they are necessary to understand the parties’ arguments regarding the discovery dispute.
Most of this information is irrelevant to the discovery dispute; the contentions are only referenced for the general proposition that EagleView claims indirect infringement by
Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 447 Filed 09/10/24 PageID.22365 Page 7 of 8 these direct quotations and specific descriptions of terms are not necessary to understand the parties’ arguments or the court’s ruling.
These are the unredacted versions of Nearmap’s discovery motion regarding the OpenSolar and CoreLogic agreements, Exhibit 6 thereto, and EagleView’s opposition.
EagleView may file a new, redacted version of Exhibit 3 to Nearmap’s discovery motion consistent with this order within seven days.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 448 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL RELATED TO EAGLEVIEW'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION ...

Document Eagle View Technologies et al v. Nearmap US, 2:21-cv-00283, No. 448 (D.Utah Sep. 10, 2024)
Motion to Seal
Additionally, the block quotation from Nearmap’s infringement contentions at the bottom of page 3 describes technical information which warrants sealing.
Nearmap’s Opposition21 Nearmap’s opposition to EagleView’s discovery motion contains detailed descriptions of Nearmap’s business operations, in support of its argument that EagleView’s request for production or inspection of Nearmap’s camera systems would be unduly burdensome.
The other redacted portions merely describe Nearmap’s general position and arguments with respect to this discovery dispute, and Nearmap has not explained how disclosure of such information would harm its business interests.
The redacted portions of the response addressing Nearmap’s business operations and technical product information warrant sealing, for the reasons explained above.
The unredacted versions of EagleView’s discovery motion, Exhibit 2 thereto, Nearmap’s opposition, EagleView’s objection, and Nearmap’s response shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered.38 This ruling may be revisited if the confidential information therein is later used to determine the parties’ substantive legal rights.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 347 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE - granting 346 Motion for ...

Document Eagle View Technologies et al v. GAF Materials LLC, 2:22-cv-00215, No. 347 (D.Utah Jun. 21, 2024)
Defendant filed an unopposed motion to amend the case schedule, (Doc. No. 346), seeking an extension of fact discovery solely for discovery related to nonparty Vexcel.
For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED.
The deadline for the completion of the collection of documents and deposition testimony from Vexcel is extended to July 31, 2024.
All other case deadlines remain unchanged.
DATED this 21st day of June, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>