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

Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al

Docket 5:21-cv-06113, Missouri Western District Court (Sept. 21, 2021)
District Judge Stephen R. Bough, presiding
Patent
DivisionSt. Joseph
FlagsMAPJ, PHV, STAYED, USPTO
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent10625436; 10639812; 7065936; 8408109, 10625436, 10639812, 7065936, 8408109
DeadlineRelease of Transcript Restriction set for 4/14/2025.
Deadline(3) The parties shall confer and submit a joint proposed scheduling order by no later than April 16, 2025.
Plaintiff Provisur Technologies, Inc.
Defendant Weber, Inc.
Defendant Weber Food Technology SE & Co. KG.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 634 Minute Entry

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 634 (W.D.Mo. Feb. 3, 2025)
HONORABLE Stephen R. Bough presiding at Kansas City, Missouri.
Plaintiff: Jeffrey Simon, Craig Martin, Taylor Hausmann, Sara T Horton, Ren-How H. Harn Defendant: Adam Prescott Seitz, Caroline A Bader Remarks: At 8:27 a.m. Court is in session and direct examination of witness Jim Farrell begins.
The Jury returns at 11:09 a.m., Defendant’s witness Mr. Philip Kahl is sworn, and direct testimony begins.
Court reconvenes and takes up matters on the record outside the presence of the jury at 12:55 p.m.
The Jury returns at 1:05 p.m. and cross examination of witness Kahl begins.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 628 Minute Entry

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 628 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 30, 2025)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 627 Minute Entry

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 627 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 29, 2025)
HONORABLE Stephen R. Bough presiding at Kansas City, Missouri.
Plaintiff: Jeffrey Simon, Craig Martin, Taylor Hausmann, Sara T Horton, Ren-How H. Harn Defendant: Adam Prescott Seitz, Caroline A Bader Remarks: Parties appear outside the presence of the jury at 8:01 a.m. and take up matters on the record.
Witness Terrense Albrecht video testimony begins at 9:22 a.m. and ends 9:31 a.m. Court breaks at 9:31 a.m. At 9:40 a.m., the court takes up matters on the record outside the presence of the jury.
Witness Jarrod McCarroll was sworn, and direct testimony begins at 9:45 a.m. Court breaks at 11:58 a.m. and the jury is released for lunch.
Court reconvenes at 1:00 p.m., and direct examination of witness McCarroll continues.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 626 Minute Entry

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 626 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 28, 2025)
HONORABLE Stephen R. Bough presiding at Kansas City, Missouri.
Plaintiff: Jeffrey Simon, Craig Martin, Taylor Hausmann, Sara T Horton, Ren-How H. Harn Defendant: Adam Prescott Seitz, Caroline A Bader Remarks: Parties appear outside the presence of the jury at 8:01 a.m. and take up matters on the record.
The jury returns at 8:48 a.m. and direct examination of witness Scriven continues.
Plaintiff finishes with direct examination of witness Scriven, and Court recesses for break at 10:17 a.m. Court reconvenes at 10:33 a.m., and cross examination of witness Scriven begins.
Court reconvenes at 1:01 p.m., and cross examination of witness Scriven continues.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 625 Minute Entry

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 625 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 27, 2025)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 619 Minute Entry

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 619 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 24, 2025)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 604 Before the Court is Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Weber, Inc., and Weber Food Technology GmbH's ...

Document Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-06113, No. 604 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 10, 2025)
However, “[a] reasonable or scientifically valid methodology is nonetheless unreliable where the data used is not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case.” Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>