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

Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.

Docket 3:22-cv-00412, California Southern District Court (Mar. 29, 2022)
District Judge Robert S. Huie, presiding, Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner
Patent
DivisionSan Diego
FlagsENE, PATENT, PROTO
Cause35:0271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
DeadlineThe Claim Construction and tutorial hearing will be held April 17, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Robert S. Huie.
DeadlineAll written discovery requests shall be served by all parties by May 9, 2025.
Plaintiff Samesurf, Inc.
Defendant Intuit, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 85 Further ORDER Regarding Intuit's Motion to Compel re (Dkt. No. 81 )

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 85 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 12, 2024)
Motion to Compel
[Dkt. No. 81] Plaintiff, Defendant.
Pursuant to the Court’s December 4, 2024 Order [Dkt. No. 84], Plaintiff has lodged a litigation funding agreement for the Court’s in camera review.
Having reviewed the agreement, the Court determines it contains no information concerning the value of the patent at issue in this case.
Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in the Court’s December 4 Order, the Court finds the agreement is not relevant, and DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel its production.
David D. Leshner United States Magistrate Judge 22-cv-412-RSH-DDL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 84 Order Regarding Intuit's Motion To Compel [Dkt. No. 81 ]

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 84 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 4, 2024)
Motion to Compel
Specifically, Intuit seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Samesurf, Inc., to respond to its Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 42.
3d 1014, 1019 (D. Ariz. 2020) (ordering production of identity of litigation funders as relevant to witness and juror bias).
The Court does not agree that the identity of such persons or entities funding the litigation is protected attorney work product.
By not later than December 12, 2024, Samesurf shall serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 11 identifying all persons or entities with a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.
The Court therefore ORDERS Samesurf to submit any litigation funding agreements directly to the undersigned’s chambers by not later than December 12, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 72 Second Case Management Order Regulating Discovery And Other Pretrial Proceedings In A Patent ...

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 72 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 23, 2024)
Case Management Order
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 64 ORDER Granting Motion To Lifting Stay [ECF No. 61 ]

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 64 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 7, 2024)
Motion to StayGranted
“The same court that imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift the stay.” Lund Motion Products, Inc. v. T-max Hangzhou Technology Co., Ltd., No. SACV 17-01914-CJC-JPR, 2020 WL 13610390, at *2 (C.D.
“[T]he existence of a stay, on its own, does not justify its perpetuation: this case would remain frozen in its nascent stage if the Court continued the stay.” Oyster Optics, 2019 WL 4729468, at *2 (citing Milwaukee Elec.
Second, the Court previously found that a stay pending the resolution of IPR proceedings would likely simplify the issues in question and trial of the case.
Although Defendant has appealed the PTAB’s decision with respect to the ’448 Patent, “the ‘pendency of an appeal from the IPR, and the possibility that the Federal Circuit may reverse the PTO (and thereby simplify this litigation by, presumably, making it disappear), is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis to make the patentee ... continue to wait to enforce patent rights that it currently holds.’” Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, No. CV 17- 07639 SJO, 2018 WL 1470594, at *7 (C.D.
Continuation of the stay would keep this case at its relatively early stage for a substantial period of additional time and delay Plaintiff the opportunity to enforce its patent rights.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 22

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 22 (S.D.Cal. Jun. 17, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 19

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 19 (S.D.Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 16-1

Document Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 3:22-cv-00412, No. 16-1 (S.D.Cal. May. 23, 2022)

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