ATX Networks (Toronto) CORP

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsD. Colorado

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

atxnetworks.com

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L1

C

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
07/15/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading by Plaintiff ATX Networks (Toronto) Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Annotated Amended Complaint and Exhibit C thereto)(Crain, Norman) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
07/15/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	AMENDED COMPLAINT against Technetix, Inc., filed by ATX Networks (Toronto) Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A - Patent 8149070, # 2 Ex. B - Website, # 3 Ex. C - Amended ATX's Preliminary Infringement Contention Claim Chart)(Crain, Norman) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
07/08/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lucas I. Silva on behalf of Technetix, Inc.Attorney Lucas I. Silva added to party Technetix, Inc.(pty:dft) (Silva, Lucas) (Entered: 07/08/2024)
07/02/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	MINUTE ORDER: The Court STRIKES Defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss for failing to comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Crews' Uniform Civil Practice Standards, and Judge Crews' Standing Order for Civil Cases.The Motion recounts some communications between the parties that preceded the filing of the 1 Complaint. See Dkt. 16, pp.2, 13. But the Motion fails to explain what the parties' conferral efforts were about the Motion itself. See D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1(a) ("The moving party shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to fulfill this duty [to confer]."); SKC Civ. Practice Standard 7.1B(b) ("Motions to dismiss filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) are discouraged if the defect is curable by the filing of an amended pleading. As such, parties are required to meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b).... The failure to comply with this conferral requirement may result in the Court striking the motion without substantive consideration."); SKC Standing Civil Order C.1 ("I expect parties to take their conferral obligation seriously.... If your motion is opposed by the other side, your Certification of Conferral in the motion must substantively describe your conferral efforts and must state the reason given by opposing counsel or the opposing party for opposing the motion.").This conferral obligation is a responsibility of ALL parties. See SKC Standing Civil Order C.1 (explaining the Court's expectations). Therefore, the Court FURTHER ORDERS that Defendant may have up to and including 7/16/2024 by which to file an answer or other responsive pleading. During this time, the Court FURTHER ORDERS both parties to confer meaningfully to determine whether or not Defendant's concerns with the Complaint may be addressed by Plaintiff's potentially amending the Complaint. If the parties cannot agree, then Defendant may renew the substance of its Motion, including a full explanation of the conferral efforts.The Court also notes that the Motion further fails to comply with SKC Civ. Practice Standard 7.1B(c) because it relies upon matters outside the pleadings but does not "address the basis for the Court to consider such documents and whether the motion should or should not be converted into a motion for summary judgment."The Court FURTHER ORDERS each counsel who has entered an appearance in this matter to review the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Crews' Uniform Civil Practice Standards, and Judge Crews' Standing Order for Civil Cases.SO ORDERED by U.S. District Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/2/2024. Text Only Entry (skclc3) (Entered: 07/02/2024) MINUTE ORDER: The Court STRIKES Defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss for failing to comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Crews' Uniform Civil Practice Standards, and Judge Crews' Standing Order for Civil Cases.The Motion recounts some communications between the parties that preceded the filing of the 1 Complaint. See Dkt. 16, pp.2, 13. But the Motion fails to explain what the parties' conferral efforts were about the Motion itself. See D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1(a) ("The moving party shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to fulfill this duty [to confer]."); SKC Civ. Practice Standard 7.1B(b) ("Motions to dismiss filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) are discouraged if the defect is curable by the filing of an amended pleading. As such, parties are required to meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b).... The failure to comply with this conferral requirement may result in the Court striking the motion without substantive consideration."); SKC Standing Civil Order C.1 ("I expect parties to take their conferral obligation seriously.... If your motion is opposed by the other side, your Certification of Conferral in the motion must substantively describe your conferral efforts and must state the reason given by opposing counsel or the opposing party for opposing the motion.").This conferral obligation is a responsibility of ALL parties. See SKC Standing Civil Order C.1 (explaining the Court's expectations). Therefore, the Court FURTHER ORDERS that Defendant may have up to and including 7/16/2024 by which to file an answer or other responsive pleading. During this time, the Court FURTHER ORDERS both parties to confer meaningfully to determine whether or not Defendant's concerns with the Complaint may be addressed by Plaintiff's potentially amending the Complaint. If the parties cannot agree, then Defendant may renew the substance of its Motion, including a full explanation of the conferral efforts.The Court also notes that the Motion further fails to comply with SKC Civ. Practice Standard 7.1B(c) because it relies upon matters outside the pleadings but does not "address the basis for the Court to consider such documents and whether the motion should or should not be converted into a motion for summary judgment."The Court FURTHER ORDERS each counsel who has entered an appearance in this matter to review the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Crews' Uniform Civil Practice Standards, and Judge Crews' Standing Order for Civil Cases.SO ORDERED by U.S. District Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/2/2024. Text Only Entry (skclc3) (Entered: 07/02/2024)
07/02/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent Technetix Group Ltd. for Technetix, Inc.. (Boehm, Kelsey) (Entered: 07/02/2024)
07/02/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	STRICKEN MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Technetix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Silva Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Silva Declaration)(Boehm, Kelsey) Modified on 7/3/2024 (skcja, ). (Entered: 07/02/2024)
07/02/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Kelsey Christine Boehm on behalf of Technetix, Inc.Attorney Kelsey Christine Boehm added to party Technetix, Inc.(pty:dft) (Boehm, Kelsey) (Entered: 07/02/2024)
07/02/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Adam R. Aquino on behalf of Technetix, Inc.Attorney Adam R. Aquino added to party Technetix, Inc.(pty:dft) (Aquino, Adam) (Entered: 07/02/2024)
06/17/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	SUMMONS Returned Executed by ATX Networks (Toronto) Corp.. Technetix, Inc. served on 6/11/2024, answer due 7/2/2024. (Crain, Norman) (Entered: 06/17/2024)
06/11/24	Atx Networks Toronto Corp v. Technetix Inc 1:24-CV-01391 ( D. CO )	ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella on 11 June 2024. Proposed Scheduling Order due 9/3/2024. Scheduling Conference set for 9/10/2024 10:00 AM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document, # 2 Continuation of Main Document) (cmadr, ) (Entered: 06/11/2024)