Chikezie Ottah

General

Total Cases16

Active Cases--

Patents--

CourtsS.D. New York

TypeNPE

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L2

E

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

L3

E

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
06/15/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	LETTER from C. Ottah, re: "REBUFF TO MTA 2ND MEMORANDUM - US PATENT 840 HAS A WELL DOCUMENTED CONVERSATION, ADJUSTMENT OF RESILIENT CLIP OR EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING PROVIDING A BOOK HOLDER THAT CAN BE EASILY AND REMOVABLY ATTACHED & REMOVED FROM A BAR OR PORTION OF THE MOBILE VEHICLE WITHOUT TOOLS ETC." I thank the Court for the recognition that, at least, technology was claimed on the specification(35 USC 112 D/E/f) and (35 USC 271)etc. Document filed by Chikezie Ottah.(sc) (Entered: 06/15/2023) LETTER from C. Ottah, re: "REBUFF TO MTA 2ND MEMORANDUM - US PATENT 840 HAS A WELL DOCUMENTED CONVERSATION, ADJUSTMENT OF RESILIENT CLIP OR EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING PROVIDING A BOOK HOLDER THAT CAN BE EASILY AND REMOVABLY ATTACHED & REMOVED FROM A BAR OR PORTION OF THE MOBILE VEHICLE WITHOUT TOOLS ETC." I thank the Court for the recognition that, at least, technology was claimed on the specification(35 USC 112 D/E/f) and (35 USC 271)etc. Document filed by Chikezie Ottah.(sc) (Entered: 06/15/2023)
05/08/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	LETTER from C. Ottah, re: Plaintiff owns the Patent, U.S. Patent 7,152,840 which is directed to hold a book and technology. I have written at least once t MTA to verify the product at issue here, no replies etc. Your Hon. I have clearly stated the use of tools(secured), and it is plausible, and I have stated plausible claim, placing the camera again and again on my book holder, the memorandum having added the history claim of book and electronic. My declaration has raised the doubt that theU.S. Patent 840 did not cover book and electronic. Document filed by Chikezie Ottah..(sc) (Entered: 05/08/2023) LETTER from C. Ottah, re: Plaintiff owns the Patent, U.S. Patent 7,152,840 which is directed to hold a book and technology. I have written at least once t MTA to verify the product at issue here, no replies etc. Your Hon. I have clearly stated the use of tools(secured), and it is plausible, and I have stated plausible claim, placing the camera again and again on my book holder, the memorandum having added the history claim of book and electronic. My declaration has raised the doubt that theU.S. Patent 840 did not cover book and electronic. Document filed by Chikezie Ottah..(sc) (Entered: 05/08/2023)
05/02/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Reply Memorandum of Law served on Chikezie Ottah on 05/02/2023. Service was made by MAIL. Document filed by MTA..(Barnes, Jason) (Entered: 05/02/2023)
05/02/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 12 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed by MTA..(Barnes, Jason) (Entered: 05/02/2023)
04/28/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	DECLARATION OF CHIKEZIE OTTAH IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM NOT TO DISMISS(in Opposition to re: 12 MOTION to Dismiss ). Document filed by Chikezie Ottah. (sc) (Entered: 04/28/2023)
04/28/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	(Affirmation of Chikezie Ottah) OPPOSITION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT(APPENDIX/LITERAL ETC.) re: 12 MOTION to Dismiss . Document filed by Chikezie Ottah. (sc) (Entered: 04/28/2023)
04/28/23	Ottah v. Mta 1:22-CV-10435 ( S.D. NY )	MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSITION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, Re: in Opposition re: 12 MOTION to Dismiss . Document filed by Chikezie Ottah. (sc) Modified on 4/28/2023 (sc). (Entered: 04/28/2023)
03/28/23	Ottah v. National Grid 1:22-CV-02935 ( S.D. NY )	NOTICE of USCA Federal Circuit. Case Number 23-1666 from the USCA Federal Circuit assigned to 53 Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit filed by Chikezie Ottah, 54 Notice of Appeal filed by Chikezie Ottah. (tp) Modified on 3/28/2023 (tp). (Entered: 03/28/2023)
03/21/23	Ottah v. National Grid 1:22-CV-02935 ( S.D. NY )	MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 54 Notice of Appeal filed by Chikezie Ottah. USCA Case Number 23-329. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over the district court's decision granting a motion to dismiss in this patent infringement action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); U.S.C. § 1631; Dorf & Stanton Commc'ns, Inc. v. Molson Breweries, 56 F.3d 13, 1516 (2d Cir. 1995). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 3/20/2023..(nd) (Entered: 03/21/2023) MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 54 Notice of Appeal filed by Chikezie Ottah. USCA Case Number 23-329. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over the district court's decision granting a motion to dismiss in this patent infringement action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); U.S.C. § 1631; Dorf & Stanton Commc'ns, Inc. v. Molson Breweries, 56 F.3d 13, 1516 (2d Cir. 1995). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 3/20/2023..(nd) (Entered: 03/21/2023)
03/21/23	Ottah v. National Grid 1:22-CV-02935 ( S.D. NY )	ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 54 Notice of Appeal filed by Chikezie Ottah. USCA Case Number 23-329. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over the district court's decision granting a motion to dismiss in this patent infringement action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); U.S.C. § 1631; Dorf & Stanton Commc'ns, Inc. v. Molson Breweries, 56 F.3d 13, 1516 (2d Cir. 1995). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 3/20/2023..(nd) Modified on 3/21/2023 (nd). (Entered: 03/21/2023) ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 54 Notice of Appeal filed by Chikezie Ottah. USCA Case Number 23-329. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over the district court's decision granting a motion to dismiss in this patent infringement action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); U.S.C. § 1631; Dorf & Stanton Commc'ns, Inc. v. Molson Breweries, 56 F.3d 13, 1516 (2d Cir. 1995). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 3/20/2023..(nd) Modified on 3/21/2023 (nd). (Entered: 03/21/2023)