Lando & Anastasi LLP

General

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

or Log in

Cases120

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

lando-anastasi

lalaw.com

Practice Areas

Transport., E-Comm.Comp. Arch. and SoftwareMech Eng, Manuf

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
10/01/24	Automated Layout Technologies LLC v. Precision Steel Systems LLC 4:20-CV-03127 ( D. NE )	ATTACHMENT - CONTINUED USB MAINTAINED IN CLERK'S OFFICE (Attachment No. 289) regarding Index [289] and Index [295] . (LKO) (Entered: 10/01/2024)
07/18/24	Mobile Pixels Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-12587 ( D. MA )	Judge Allison D. Burroughs: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. Mobile Pixels' motion to dismiss and strike, [ECF No. 92 ], is GRANTED. Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Fourth Affirmative Defense is stricken, and Counterclaims II-VIII aredismissed without prejudice.SO ORDERED. (McManus, Caetlin) (Entered: 07/18/2024)
07/18/24	Mobile Pixels Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-12587 ( D. MA )	Judge Allison D. Burroughs: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. Defendants' motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 99 ], is DENIED.SO ORDERED.(McManus, Caetlin) (Entered: 07/18/2024)
06/06/24	Wildlife Acoustics Inc v. Frontier Labs Pty Ltd 1:20-CV-10620 ( D. MA )	Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Electronic Order entered. The defendant’s 75 Motion for an Exceptional Case Determination and Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is DENIED. Regardless of whether the defendant is a prevailing party in this litigation, this case does not present the “exceptional circumstances” required to award fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant has not shown that this case stands out with respect to the strength of the plaintiff’s litigation position or the reasonableness of the manner in which it was investigated or litigated. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). (Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 06/06/2024) Judge George A. OToole, Jr: Electronic Order entered. The defendant’s 75 Motion for an Exceptional Case Determination and Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is DENIED. Regardless of whether the defendant is a prevailing party in this litigation, this case does not present the “exceptional circumstances” required to award fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant has not shown that this case stands out with respect to the strength of the plaintiff’s litigation position or the reasonableness of the manner in which it was investigated or litigated. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). (Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 06/06/2024)
12/12/23	Big Beings USA Pty Ltd v. Nested Bean Inc 1:20-CV-10101 ( D. MA )	REPORT ON THE TERMINATION OF AN ACTION REGARDING PATENT OR TRADEMARK. (Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 12/12/2023)
12/12/23	Big Beings USA Pty Ltd v. Nested Bean Inc 1:20-CV-10101 ( D. MA )	STIPULATION of Dismissal by Big Beings USA PTY Ltd, LB Online & Export PTY Ltd. (Kertscher, Douglas) (Entered: 12/12/2023)
08/10/23	Big Beings USA Pty Ltd v. Nested Bean Inc 1:23-CV-10673 ( D. MA )	Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVER OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. (Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/23	Big Beings USA Pty Ltd v. Nested Bean Inc 1:23-CV-10673 ( D. MA )	Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER.Notwithstanding this order, any motion requesting leave of court to file materials under seal must include a particularized showing for the need for impoundment. The court is guided in this regard by First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2. Because the public has a “presumptive” right of access to judicial documents, United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)), “‘only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law right of access.'" Id. (quoting In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)). The burden is thus on the impoundment-seeking party to show that impoundment will not violate the public’s presumptive right of access. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”) (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)); Miller v. City of Bos., 549 F. Supp. 2d 140, 141 (D. Mass. 2008) (“The proponent of a Protective Order bears the burden of establishing ‘good cause’ for its continuation”) (internal citation omitted). For that reason, when seeking to file under seal any confidential information, a party must show this court good cause for the impoundment. See Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 60.(Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 08/10/2023) Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER.Notwithstanding this order, any motion requesting leave of court to file materials under seal must include a particularized showing for the need for impoundment. The court is guided in this regard by First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2. Because the public has a “presumptive” right of access to judicial documents, United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)), “‘only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law right of access.'" Id. (quoting In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)). The burden is thus on the impoundment-seeking party to show that impoundment will not violate the public’s presumptive right of access. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”) (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)); Miller v. City of Bos., 549 F. Supp. 2d 140, 141 (D. Mass. 2008) (“The proponent of a Protective Order bears the burden of establishing ‘good cause’ for its continuation”) (internal citation omitted). For that reason, when seeking to file under seal any confidential information, a party must show this court good cause for the impoundment. See Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 60.(Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
07/12/23	Monahan Products LLC v. Dorel Juvenile Group Inc 1:23-CV-10602 ( D. MA )	REPORT ON THE TERMINATION OF AN ACTION REGARDING PATENT OR TRADEMARK. (Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 07/12/2023)
07/12/23	Monahan Products LLC v. Dorel Juvenile Group Inc 1:23-CV-10602 ( D. MA )	ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing: In light of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissl 21, the Scheduling Conference set for August 22, 2023 is cancelled. (Kelly, Danielle) (Entered: 07/12/2023)