Vitale Vickrey Niro & Gasey LLP

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases52

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

Practice Areas

Mech Eng, ManufTransport., E-Comm.Communications

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
07/24/24	Xodus Medical Inc. v 1:19-CV-03164 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Video status conference held. All discovery has been completed and the Motion To Amend Its Final Invalidity Contentions 86 is pending before Judge Valderrama 87, and that the parties do not feel that a settlement conference would be useful given their respective contentions. Accordingly, all matters relating to the referral, having been resolved, the referral is closed, and the case returned to Judge Valderrama. Emailed notice (yt) (Entered: 07/24/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Video status conference held. All discovery has been completed and the Motion To Amend Its Final Invalidity Contentions 86 is pending before Judge Valderrama 87, and that the parties do not feel that a settlement conference would be useful given their respective contentions. Accordingly, all matters relating to the referral, having been resolved, the referral is closed, and the case returned to Judge Valderrama. Emailed notice (yt) (Entered: 07/24/2024)
07/22/24	Youtoo Tech LLC v. Twitter Inc 3:16-CV-00764 ( N.D. TX )	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 260 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Ordered by Chief District Judge David C Godbey on 7/22/2024) (cfk) (Entered: 07/22/2024)
07/15/24	Go Fan Yourself LLC v. Illumipure Inc 4:24-CV-01894 ( S.D. TX )	ORDER granting 17 Motion to Reset; Motion-related deadline set re: 17 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Initial Pretrial Conference. Initial Conference set for 10/10/2024 at 10:00 AM in by video before Magistrate Judge Richard W Bennett.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard W Bennett) Parties notified. (svj4) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
07/15/24	Go Fan Yourself LLC v. Illumipure Inc 4:24-CV-01894 ( S.D. TX )	NOTICE of Referral of Motion to Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett re: 17 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Initial Pretrial Conference. Designated staff for referral judge notified by NEF., filed. (rsh4) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
07/15/24	Go Fan Yourself LLC v. Illumipure Inc 4:24-CV-01894 ( S.D. TX )	CONTINUATION OF ENTRY 20 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard W Bennett) Parties notified. (svj4) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
05/12/23	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-02902 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 5/12/2023, the parties filed a document 41 entitled "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice." A proper stipulated dismissal would, in the ordinary course, constitute a self-executing act without the need for a separate court order. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Yet a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order only if the notice of dismissal is filed "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). If the opposing party has already served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, an automatic dismissal can occur only if the stipulation of dismissal is "signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant Jessup Manufacturing Company has already filed an answer 21 35, but the stipulation of dismissal was signed only by Defendant (it is represented as agreed to by Plaintiff). Based on the Court's understanding of the parties' intent, however, the Court will construe the stipulated dismissal 41 as an unopposed motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consistent with that Rule, and in recognition of Defendant's pending counterclaim 35 (see FRCP 41(a)(2) and that Rule's treatment of counterclaims), the motion is granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the stipulation of dismissal. To the extent any party objects to the substance of this order, they may file a short, written objection on or before 5/19/2023 asking that the case be reinstated. In the alternative, the parties may, if they so choose, file a corrected joint stipulation of dismissal. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. Plaintiff's motion 36 to dismiss the counterclaim is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/12/2023) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 5/12/2023, the parties filed a document 41 entitled "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice." A proper stipulated dismissal would, in the ordinary course, constitute a self-executing act without the need for a separate court order. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Yet a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order only if the notice of dismissal is filed "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). If the opposing party has already served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, an automatic dismissal can occur only if the stipulation of dismissal is "signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant Jessup Manufacturing Company has already filed an answer 21 35, but the stipulation of dismissal was signed only by Defendant (it is represented as agreed to by Plaintiff). Based on the Court's understanding of the parties' intent, however, the Court will construe the stipulated dismissal 41 as an unopposed motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consistent with that Rule, and in recognition of Defendant's pending counterclaim 35 (see FRCP 41(a)(2) and that Rule's treatment of counterclaims), the motion is granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the stipulation of dismissal. To the extent any party objects to the substance of this order, they may file a short, written objection on or before 5/19/2023 asking that the case be reinstated. In the alternative, the parties may, if they so choose, file a corrected joint stipulation of dismissal. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. Plaintiff's motion 36 to dismiss the counterclaim is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
05/12/23	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-02902 ( N.D. IL )	STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint (Gasey, Arthur) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
05/12/23	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-02902 ( N.D. IL )	***Civil Case Terminated. (ef, ) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
11/28/22	Pressure Specialist Inc v. HK Army Inc 2:22-CV-03735 ( C.D. CA )	REPORT ON THE DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or Trademark. (Closing) (es) (Entered: 11/28/2022)
07/28/22	Celanese Intl Corp v. Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co Ltd 1:20-CV-01775 ( D. DE )	ORDER: The above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the related litigation before the United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been resolved so that this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/28/2022. (nms) (Entered: 07/28/2022)