Cantor Colburn LLP
General
Cases302
Challenger50%
Patent Owner50%
NPE50%
Practice Areas
BiotechMech Eng, ManufSoftware, Security
Top Attorneys
Elite Ratings
DCTPTABCAFC
Analytics
Lawyers
Cases
Ratings Trends
Practice Areas
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 01/08/25 | Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Jennifer Truelove. ( re [450] MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jennifer Truelove )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4585648).(Brauerman, Stephen) (Entered: 01/08/2025) | |
| 01/08/25 | MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jennifer Truelove - filed by Robocast, Inc., Robocast, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Certification of Jennifer Truelove)(Golden, Ronald) (Entered: 01/08/2025) | |
| 01/08/25 | [SEALED] MEMORANDUM ORDER regarding D.I. [316] Discovery Dispute. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/8/2025. Any such redacted version shall be submitted no later than January 11, 2025. This order has been emailed to local counsel. (smg) (Entered: 01/08/2025) | |
| 01/08/25 | Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jennifer L. Truelove for Robocast, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (scs) (Entered: 01/08/2025) | |
| 01/08/25 | SO ORDERED, re (450 in 1:22-cv-00305-JLH, 304 in 1:22-cv-00304-JLH-CJB) Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jennifer Truelove filed by Robocast, Inc. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 1/8/2025. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00304-JLH-CJB, 1:22-cv-00305-JLH(ceg) (Entered: 01/08/2025) | |
| 08/20/24 | Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.(lnb) (Entered: 08/20/2024) | |
| 08/20/24 | CONSENT JUDGMENT, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 8/19/2024. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01450-GBW, 1:23-cv-00389-GBW(lnb) (Entered: 08/20/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Responses and Objections to 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and Topics filed by Google LLC, Youtube, LLC..(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motionâ€), (D.I. 168 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 187 ; D.I. 191 ; D.I. 195 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to more specifically identify the accused products and accused functionalities, (D.I. 187 at 1-2), it is DENIED. In its opening letter brief, Defendants did not specify or go into any real detail about what it was about Plaintiff’s current identification that was wanting or that should be corrected; instead, they saved any real explanation about why Plaintiff’s “definition [was purportedly] unclear†for their reply brief, (D.I. 195 at 1), which is inappropriate. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994); Teleconf. Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharms., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 321, 331 n.13 (D. Del. 2009).; (2) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ Interrogatory (“ROGâ€) No. 1, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is GRANTED. The current response is devoid of any specific narrative description of: (1) the details that resulted in the inventions being conceived by particular dates; and (2) specifics relating to the activities that are said to have reduced the invention to practice (e.g., particular facts regarding the “research†or “consulting opportunities†or “prepar[ing] a simulation†or “purch[asing] computer equipment†or “planning†or “consult[ing] with... professionals†referenced in the prior answer). If Plaintiff’s view is that it has described these types of details elsewhere, (D.I. 191 at 2-3), then it should be no problem for it to provide a robust narrative supplement in writing in a timely fashion to ROG No. 1. Plaintiff shall supplement its response no later than 10 days from today’s date.; and (3) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ ROG No. 7, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is DENIED. The ask is for more details regarding the nexus between any alleged objective indicia and Plaintiff’s own products, (id.), but Plaintiff’s position is that its products were coextensive with the asserted claims, (D.I. 191 at 3). The Court does not have before it a sufficient record to conclude that this assertion is baseless as to all asserted claims, and so it cannot grant any further relief here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 168 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 187 ; D.I. 191 ; D.I. 195 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to more specifically identify the accused products and accused functionalities, (D.I. 187 at 1-2), it is DENIED. In its opening letter brief, Defendants did not specify or go into any real detail about what it was about Plaintiff’s current identification that was wanting or that should be corrected; instead, they saved any real explanation about why Plaintiff’s “definition [was purportedly] unclear” for their reply brief, (D.I. 195 at 1), which is inappropriate. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994); Teleconf. Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharms., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 321, 331 n.13 (D. Del. 2009).; (2) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ Interrogatory (“ROG”) No. 1, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is GRANTED. The current response is devoid of any specific narrative description of: (1) the details that resulted in the inventions being conceived by particular dates; and (2) specifics relating to the activities that are said to have reduced the invention to practice (e.g., particular facts regarding the “research” or “consulting opportunities” or “prepar[ing] a simulation” or “purch[asing] computer equipment” or “planning” or “consult[ing] with... professionals” referenced in the prior answer). If Plaintiff’s view is that it has described these types of details elsewhere, (D.I. 191 at 2-3), then it should be no problem for it to provide a robust narrative supplement in writing in a timely fashion to ROG No. 1. Plaintiff shall supplement its response no later than 10 days from today’s date.; and (3) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ ROG No. 7, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is DENIED. The ask is for more details regarding the nexus between any alleged objective indicia and Plaintiff’s own products, (id.), but Plaintiff’s position is that its products were coextensive with the asserted claims, (D.I. 191 at 3). The Court does not have before it a sufficient record to conclude that this assertion is baseless as to all asserted claims, and so it cannot grant any further relief here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) |