DCT

2:22-cv-00126

Arigna Technology Ltd v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd

General

Filed

04/27/22

Cause of ActionPatent Infringement

SectorSemicond., Optic

StatusClosed

Patent Owner

Operating Company

PACER

Nature of Suit830 Patent

Judge	Period	PO Win Rate
James R. Gilstrap	04/27/22 - 01/18/23	35%

Magistrate

Roy S. Payne

Plaintiff

Party

Name	Ratings
Arigna Technology Ltd NPE	L3 D

No Parties

Attorney

No Attorneys

Defendant

Party

Name	Ratings
Nissan Motor Co Ltd	L3 A
Toyota Motor North America Inc	L4 A
Toyota Motor Corp	L4 A
General Motors LLC	L4 A
Nissan North America Inc	L3 A
Tesla Inc	L2 B
Continental AG	L2 D
Conti Temic Microelectronic GmbH	L2 D
ADC Automotive Distance Control Systems GmbH	L2 D

No Parties

Attorney

Name	Ratings
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP	L5 A
Victoria F. Maroulis	L5 D
Marissa R. Ducca	L3 B
Jonathan Sze Ming Tse	L2 C
Gillam & Smith LLPLocal	L5 A
Melissa R. Smith	L5 A
Fish & Richardson	L5 A
Ruffin B. Cordell	L5 A
Aamir A. Kazi	L3 A
Daniel Gopenko	L3 C
Michael Vincent	L2 D
Hunton & Williams LLP	L5 B
Michael A. Oakes	L4 A
Tonya M. Gray	L4 D
Kenyon & Kenyon LLP	L5 B
Andrew D. Kasnevich	-- -- --
Heartfield Law FirmLocal	L4 A
J. Thad Heartfield	L5 A
M. Dru Montgomery	L5 B
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP	L4 B
John R. Keville	L5 B
Michelle C. Replogle	L2 B
Michael C. Krill	L1 D
Robert L. Green	-- -- --
Mann Tindel & ThompsonLocal	L3 B
J. Mark Mann	L5 A
Gregory B. Thompson	L5 B
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP	L3 B
B. Trent Webb	L5 B
Patrick A. Lujin	L2 B
David W. Morehan	L2 C
Mary J. Peal	L2 D
Omowunmi Soyinka	-- -- --
Ratner Prestia	L3 C
Benjamin E. Leace	L3 A
Andrew Koopman	L2 A
Karen R. Poppel	L2 B
Christopher H. Blaszkowski	L2 B

No Attorneys