Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Armond Wilson
-
Motion | Filed: May 08, 2024 | Entered: May 08, 2024 Kolon Industries, Inc. v. Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al
Patent | California Central
Appear Pro Hac Vice (G-64)
APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Ashish D. Patel to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Hyosung USA, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-37430343) filed by Defendant Hyosung USA, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Li, Josepher)
-
Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Patent | Texas Western
Transcript Filed
Transcript filed of Proceedings held on March 26, 2024, Proceedings Transcribed: Protective Order Modification Hearing. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lily I. Reznik, Telephone number: 512-391-8792 or Lily_Reznik@txwd.uscourts.gov. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript to ensure compliance with the FRCP 5.2(a)/FRCrP 49.1(a). A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Notice of Redaction Request must be filed within 21 days. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed Redaction Request due 5/28/2024, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/7/2024, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/5/2024, (lr)
-
Filed: May 06, 2024 | Entered: May 06, 2024 Wi-LAN Inc. et al v. Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. et al
Patent | California Central
Generic Text Only Entry
[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Stipulation to Lift Stay of Severed Case, Assign Case Number, File Second Amended Complaint, Serve Amended Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, and Enter New Schedule. (Docket No. 134) The Court cannot lift a stay in the instant action because they stay was already lifted. (Docket No. 115) In the same Order, the Court indicated that the '688 Patent was severed into its own case. Id. However, Plaintiff never filed a new case asserting the '688 Patent. Accordingly, there is no separate, stayed case concerning the '688 Patent. Plaintiff must file a new action asserting the '688 Patent. The parties may then file a joint stipulation with a proposed case schedule and any other requests for that action once it has been opened. It is so Ordered. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (eva) TEXT ONLY ENTRY Modified on 5/6/2024 (eva).
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login