Elaine Vieth

General

Total Cases4

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsD. Minnesota D. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
09/15/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	The following patents were Instituted by PTAB: Patent US9066958 in IPR2023-00726
09/01/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, re 112 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Lema Khorshid and William E. Meyer Jr. filed by MOM Enterprises, LLC. Signed by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 9/1/23. (ntl) (Entered: 09/01/2023)
08/31/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Lema Khorshid and William E. Meyer Jr. - filed by MOM Enterprises, LLC,. (Anderson, Jeremy) (Entered: 08/31/2023)
08/29/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff Ddrops Company's Objections to Defendant's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Ddrops Company filed by Ddrops Company, Elaine Vieth, Reinhold Vieth.(Silverstein, Alan) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/28/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of 104 Reply Brief by MOM Enterprises, LLC,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Anderson, Jeremy) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
08/28/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	Amended NOTICE of Deposition of Third-Party Innovative Labs by Ddrops Company, Elaine Vieth, Reinhold Vieth re 100 Notice (Other) (Silverstein, Alan) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
08/25/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant MOM Enterprises, LLC's ("MOM") Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") (D.I. 80, "the Motion") and the parties' briefing related thereto (D.I. 81; D.I. 91; D.I. 104), and having considered the three stay-related factors, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 15-1168-LPS, 2021 WL 616992, at 2 (D. Del. Feb. 17, 2021), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request if the IPR is instituted. A court has discretionary authority to grant a motion to stay. See Dentsply Int'l Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 734 F. Supp. 656, 658 (D. Del. 1990). Because no institution decision has yet been issued, the Court will decline to stay the case until it hears from the PTAB. Microscopy Inc. v. Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC, C.A. No. 15-516-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 558615, at 2 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2016); ImmerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., C.A. No. 18-1630-MN-CJB, D.I. 78 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2020). By no later than five (5) business days after the PTAB issues its institution decision as to the IPR petition relating to the asserted patent, the parties shall file a joint letter updating the Court on the results of the PTAB's decision. If the PTAB grants the IPR petition, and if MOM then wishes to renew its Motion, MOM should include in the joint letter a statement that it intends to renew its Motion. The Court will then set a letter briefing schedule on the renewed Motion. When reviewing the renewed Motion, the Court will take into account the briefs already filed as to the instant Motion. ORDERED by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 8/25/2023. (ntl) (Entered: 08/25/2023) ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant MOM Enterprises, LLC's ("MOM") Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") (D.I. 80, "the Motion") and the parties' briefing related thereto (D.I. 81; D.I. 91; D.I. 104), and having considered the three stay-related factors, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 15-1168-LPS, 2021 WL 616992, at 2 (D. Del. Feb. 17, 2021), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request if the IPR is instituted. A court has discretionary authority to grant a motion to stay. See Dentsply Int'l Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 734 F. Supp. 656, 658 (D. Del. 1990). Because no institution decision has yet been issued, the Court will decline to stay the case until it hears from the PTAB. Microscopy Inc. v. Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC, C.A. No. 15-516-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 558615, at 2 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2016); ImmerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., C.A. No. 18-1630-MN-CJB, D.I. 78 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2020). By no later than five (5) business days after the PTAB issues its institution decision as to the IPR petition relating to the asserted patent, the parties shall file a joint letter updating the Court on the results of the PTAB's decision. If the PTAB grants the IPR petition, and if MOM then wishes to renew its Motion, MOM should include in the joint letter a statement that it intends to renew its Motion. The Court will then set a letter briefing schedule on the renewed Motion. When reviewing the renewed Motion, the Court will take into account the briefs already filed as to the instant Motion. ORDERED by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 8/25/2023. (ntl) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
08/25/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the letter request for a discovery teleconference (D.I. 82) and the associated letter briefing and exhibits (D.I. 95; D.I. 101), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief Plaintiffs Ddrops Co., Reinhold Veith and Elaine Vieth (collectively, "Ddrops") seek (D.I. 95) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The disputes raised by Ddrops appear to have been brought to the Court prematurely. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the disputes in Ddrops' letter (D.I. 95) within seven (7) days of this Order. The parties should ensure that they are at an impasse before raising any remaining disputes with the Court. ORDERED by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 8/25/23. (ntl) (Entered: 08/25/2023) ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the letter request for a discovery teleconference (D.I. 82) and the associated letter briefing and exhibits (D.I. 95; D.I. 101), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief Plaintiffs Ddrops Co., Reinhold Veith and Elaine Vieth (collectively, "Ddrops") seek (D.I. 95) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The disputes raised by Ddrops appear to have been brought to the Court prematurely. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the disputes in Ddrops' letter (D.I. 95) within seven (7) days of this Order. The parties should ensure that they are at an impasse before raising any remaining disputes with the Court. ORDERED by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 8/25/23. (ntl) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
08/25/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of 101 Letter by MOM Enterprises, LLC,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Anderson, Jeremy) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
08/24/23	Ddrops Co v. Mom Enterprisess LLC 1:22-CV-00332 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant's First Amended Notice of Deposition of Reinhold Vieth Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) filed by MOM Enterprises, LLC,.(Anderson, Jeremy) (Entered: 08/24/2023)