Ghost Robotics Corp

General

Total Cases2

Active Cases2

Patents1

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

ghostrobotics.io

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
07/24/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Motions to Strike re Set Deadlines/Hearings, by Boston Dynamics, Inc.. (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 07/24/2024)
07/24/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED re 210 Stipulation and Order Regarding Motions to Strike (Opening letters due by 9/6/2024. Answering letters due by 9/16/2024). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 7/24/2024. (dlw) (Entered: 07/24/2024)
07/23/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Opening Markman Brief filed by Boston Dynamics, Inc..(Egan, Brian) (Entered: 07/23/2024)
07/23/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendantâ€™s Motion to Resolve Discovery Dispute, (D.I. 200 ), and the partiesâ€™ accompanying letters, (D.I. 198 ; D.I. 201 ), in which Defendant seeks clarification of the Courtâ€™s May 28, 2024 Order (â€œMay 28 Orderâ€), (see D.I. 185 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff is technically correct that in the Courtâ€™s May 28 Order, the Court only granted Defendant the ability to get further testimony about Topic 51 as it relates to ADS. (See id. at 97; D.I. 201 at 1) And so, at the present time, that is all Defendant is entitled to, and Defendant may obtain that testimony in any permissible form that it deems acceptable. (See D.I. 198 at 1); (2) That said, the only reason that the Courtâ€™s May 28 Order was limited to ADS is because the Court simply wasnâ€™t aware that there was any credible assertion that Plaintiff might have spoken to other third parties regarding this action. (D.I. 162 at 3 (mentioning ADS); D.I. 172 at 2 (referencing ADS); D.I. 185 at 97) Had the Court known that there was at least some prospect that this was so, it might well have expanded its May 28 Order to permit questioning about any other such communications.; (3) The Court also sees that Plaintiff now alleges that it sought similar information from Defendant via its deposition Topic 4, and that Plaintiff claims that it did not get the full scope of the information it was entitled to on that score, because a witness was not prepared to give it. It seems like that might have happened, (D.I. 201, ex. E), though the Court canâ€™t be sure, because Plaintiff has not gone through the full discovery dispute process regarding that issue (nor has Defendant had the opportunity to respond).; and (4) The Court has already encouraged the parties to try to find a reasonable compromise as to their disputes regarding communications with third parties relating to the litigation. (D.I. 185 at 97-98) If the parties canâ€™t agree on these additional Topic 51/Topic 4 issues, they can seek further relief via the Courtâ€™s discovery dispute procedures. But if that happens, the losing side should know that the Court will likely order that it pay the winning sideâ€™s fees regarding such a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. So the Court again encourages the parties to try hard to work something out. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/23/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/23/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendantâ€™s Motion to Resolve Discovery Dispute, (D.I. 200 ), and the partiesâ€™ accompanying letters, (D.I. 198 ; D.I. 201 ), in which Defendant seeks clarification of the Courtâ€™s May 28, 2024 Order (â€œMay 28 Orderâ€), (see D.I. 185 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff is technically correct that in the Courtâ€™s May 28 Order, the Court only granted Defendant the ability to get further testimony about Topic 51 as it relates to ADS. (See id. at 97; D.I. 201 at 1) And so, at the present time, that is all Defendant is entitled to, and Defendant may obtain that testimony in any permissible form that it deems acceptable. (See D.I. 198 at 1); (2) That said, the only reason that the Courtâ€™s May 28 Order was limited to ADS is because the Court simply wasnâ€™t aware that there was any credible assertion that Plaintiff might have spoken to other third parties regarding this action. (D.I. 162 at 3 (mentioning ADS); D.I. 172 at 2 (referencing ADS); D.I. 185 at 97) Had the Court known that there was at least some prospect that this was so, it might well have expanded its May 28 Order to permit questioning about any other such communications.; (3) The Court also sees that Plaintiff now alleges that it sought similar information from Defendant via its deposition Topic 4, and that Plaintiff claims that it did not get the full scope of the information it was entitled to on that score, because a witness was not prepared to give it. It seems like that might have happened, (D.I. 201, ex. E), though the Court canâ€™t be sure, because Plaintiff has not gone through the full discovery dispute process regarding that issue (nor has Defendant had the opportunity to respond).; and (4) The Court has already encouraged the parties to try to find a reasonable compromise as to their disputes regarding communications with third parties relating to the litigation. (D.I. 185 at 97-98) If the parties canâ€™t agree on these additional Topic 51/Topic 4 issues, they can seek further relief via the Courtâ€™s discovery dispute procedures. But if that happens, the losing side should know that the Court will likely order that it pay the winning sideâ€™s fees regarding such a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. So the Court again encourages the parties to try hard to work something out. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/23/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/23/2024)
07/17/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of 201 Letter by Boston Dynamics, Inc.. (Egan, Brian) (Entered: 07/17/2024)
07/16/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	AMENDED CLAIM Construction Chart by Boston Dynamics, Inc. (Egan, Brian) Modified on 7/17/2024 (dlw). (Entered: 07/16/2024)
07/16/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of 198 Letter by Ghost Robotics Corporation. (DiBenedetto, Emily) (Entered: 07/16/2024)
07/15/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file a public version of D.I. 198 to July 16, 2024 - filed by Ghost Robotics Corporation. (DiBenedetto, Emily) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
07/15/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	Pro Hac Vice Attorney Cara E. Regan for Ghost Robotics Corporation 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. (mws) (Entered: 07/15/2024)
07/15/24	Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp 1:22-CV-01483 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, D.I. 204 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file a public version of D.I. 198 to July 16, 2024 filed by Ghost Robotics Corporation. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/15/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/15/2024)