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

Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.

Docket 3:23-mc-00003, Tennessee Middle District Court (Jan. 20, 2023)
District Judge Eli J. Richardson, presiding
DivisionNashville
FlagsCASE-CLOSED
CauseCivil Miscellaneous Case
Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
Movant Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 15 ORDER: On January 17, 2024, the parties filed a "Joint Status Report" (Doc. No. 14 , "Report") ...

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 15 (M.D.Tenn. Jan. 17, 2024)
Pending before the Court is a motion to quash subpoena (Doc. No. 1, “Motion”) filed by Movant Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. (“Patterson”) on January 20, 2023.
The Motion seeks to quash a subpoena served on Patterson by Defendant on January 6, 2023.
The Motion was what initiated the above-captioned case, and it was the sole matter at issue in the above-captioned case.
On January 17, 2024, the parties filed a “Joint Status Report” (Doc. No. 14, “Report”) informing the Court that there is no longer a dispute regarding the subpoena served on January 6, 2023.
Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 13 ORDER: On or before January 13, 2024, the parties shall file (jointly, if possible, or separately, ...

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 13 (M.D.Tenn. Dec. 14, 2023)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 14 STATUS REPORT by Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 14 (M.D.Tenn. Jan. 16, 2024)
Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. and Caterpillar, Inc. (collectively, “the Parties”) by and through the undersigned counsel, jointly provide the following report regarding the current status of the dispute and whether any relevant circumstances have changed since the last substantive filing, which occurred on February 17, 2023, as requested in the Court’s Order (ECF No. 13).
A deposition of Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. was conducted on January 12, 2024.
No further deposition of Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. is sought by Caterpillar, Inc. and there is no longer a dispute regarding the original subpoena served on January 6, 2023.
The parties are available if the Court has any additional questions or concerns regarding the above matters.
1301 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10019
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 10 MOTION for attorney Ryan R. Smith to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number ...

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 10 (M.D.Tenn. Feb. 22, 2023)
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct: I am a member in good standing of the United States District Court for the
I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or readmission by any court or tribunal, except as provided below.
I understand that pursuant to Local Rule 83.01(d)(1), if I am not both a member of the Tennessee bar and admitted to the bar of this Court, local counsel must be retained.
I have read and am familiar with Local Rules of Court for the United States District Court Middle District of Tennessee.
Signature Name: State where admitted and State Bar Number: Business Address: Local Address [if different from above]: Phone: Email:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 9 REPLY to Response to re 1 MOTION to Quash filed by Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 9 (M.D.Tenn. Feb. 17, 2023)
Motion to Quash
Caterpillar’s pretext for serving its subpoena is that Patterson “monitor[ed] Caterpillar’s product development and rush[ed] to the Patent Office to secure claims covering those features.
Because Caterpillar has not explained how discovery from Patterson is relevant to its alleged “prosecution laches” defense in view of controlling Federal Circuit authority, this alone wants granting Patterson’s motion to quash.
For example, (1) chilling Patterson’s attorney–client communications, (2) hindering Patterson’s legal representation, (3) potentially disqualifying Patterson from legal representation, (4) sparking collateral litigation to properly limit the subpoena, (5) forcing Patterson to gather documents and prepare for depositions that could be obtained from other sources, and (6) diverting Patterson’s time and efforts away from representing Wirtgen America, Wirtgen GmbH, and other clients.
Indeed, these are the burdens specifically found by the Court in Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 276 F.R.D.
These efforts included a meet and confer videoconference where counsel for the parties verbally communicated to try to resolve the matters set forth in this motion.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1 MOTION to Quash Supoena by Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ...

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 1 (M.D.Tenn. Jan. 20, 2023)
Motion to Quash
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 12 NOTICE by Caterpillar Inc

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 3:23-mc-00003, No. 12 (M.D.Tenn. Mar. 17, 2023)
Originating Case: District of Delaware C.A.
Please take notice that Mark W. Lenihan withdraws as counsel for Caterpillar, Inc. Mr. Lenihan will be moving away from Nashville and to a different law firm, so will no longer be acting as counsel of record in this matter.
Caterpillar, Inc. will continue to be represented by the law firm Sims|Funk, PLC by Samuel P. Funk.
Dated: March 17, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>