Knape & Vogt Mfg Co

General

Total Cases19

Active Cases--

Patents89

CourtsW.D. Michigan C.D. California D. Arizona

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
01/04/23	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	TEXT ORDER: The parties have filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (d/e 49 ). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) states that "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Representatives for both Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company and Design Ideas, Ltd. have signed the filed Stipulation. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this case is closed. Any pending motions are DENIED as MOOT, any pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any scheduled settings are VACATED. Each party to bear its own costs. No judgment to enter. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/4/2023. (DM) (Entered: 01/04/2023) TEXT ORDER: The parties have filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (d/e 49 ). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) states that "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Representatives for both Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company and Design Ideas, Ltd. have signed the filed Stipulation. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this case is closed. Any pending motions are DENIED as MOOT, any pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any scheduled settings are VACATED. Each party to bear its own costs. No judgment to enter. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/4/2023. (DM) (Entered: 01/04/2023)
01/03/23	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gipson, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2023)
12/29/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	TEXT ORDER: The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (d/e 48 ). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." The parties also request the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. "[W]hen a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it is gone, and the district court cannot adjudicate disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the dismissal merely by stating that it is retaining jurisdiction." Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2007); see Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2006); Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002). However, "[t]he terms of a settlement can be embodied in an order dismissing the lawsuit, which would allow that order to serve as an enforceable injunction." Balshe LLC v. Ross, 441 Fed. App'x. 395, 396 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n v. Am. Express Co., 467 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2006)). The embodiment of the settlement must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). If the parties wish for the Court to dismiss with prejudice and retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Court DIRECTS the parties to file a motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(B) stating the grounds on which the Court may maintain jurisdiction, which may include the Court's issuance of an injunction that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). Additionally, the Court notes that the parties have not provided the terms of the Settlement Agreement to the Court. Without incorporating the terms of the Settlement Agreement into its order, the Court may not retain jurisdiction to enforce them. See Blue Cross, 467 F.3d at 638. The parties should ensure that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are submitted to the Court so the Court may grant an injunction in compliance with Rule 65(d): "stat[ing] the reasons why [the injunction] issued; stat[ing] its terms specifically; and describe[ing] in reasonable detail--and not be referring to the complaint or other document--the act or acts restrained or required." Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation requesting the Court dismiss without prejudice but agree to the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement for a limited amount of time. The motion to reinstate must be filed within that time. See Shapo, 463 F.3d at 646; Bd. of Pipe Fitters Ret. Fund, Local 597 v. Kramer Mech. LLC, No. 13 C 195, 2014 WL 840986, at 2 (N.D. Ill. March 4, 2014); Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., No. 01 C 9389, 2013 WL 6224489, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2013). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/29/2022. (DM) (Entered: 12/29/2022) TEXT ORDER: The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (d/e 48 ). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." The parties also request the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. "[W]hen a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it is gone, and the district court cannot adjudicate disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the dismissal merely by stating that it is retaining jurisdiction." Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2007); see Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2006); Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002). However, "[t]he terms of a settlement can be embodied in an order dismissing the lawsuit, which would allow that order to serve as an enforceable injunction." Balshe LLC v. Ross, 441 Fed. App'x. 395, 396 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n v. Am. Express Co., 467 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2006)). The embodiment of the settlement must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). If the parties wish for the Court to dismiss with prejudice and retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Court DIRECTS the parties to file a motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(B) stating the grounds on which the Court may maintain jurisdiction, which may include the Court's issuance of an injunction that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). Additionally, the Court notes that the parties have not provided the terms of the Settlement Agreement to the Court. Without incorporating the terms of the Settlement Agreement into its order, the Court may not retain jurisdiction to enforce them. See Blue Cross, 467 F.3d at 638. The parties should ensure that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are submitted to the Court so the Court may grant an injunction in compliance with Rule 65(d): "stat[ing] the reasons why [the injunction] issued; stat[ing] its terms specifically; and describe[ing] in reasonable detail--and not be referring to the complaint or other document--the act or acts restrained or required." Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation requesting the Court dismiss without prejudice but agree to the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement for a limited amount of time. The motion to reinstate must be filed within that time. See Shapo, 463 F.3d at 646; Bd. of Pipe Fitters Ret. Fund, Local 597 v. Kramer Mech. LLC, No. 13 C 195, 2014 WL 840986, at 2 (N.D. Ill. March 4, 2014); Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., No. 01 C 9389, 2013 WL 6224489, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2013). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/29/2022. (DM) (Entered: 12/29/2022)
12/21/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	Remark: The 12/19/2022 docket entry was returned as an undeliverable email address as to Nathan R. VanRyn. Attorney Nathan R. VanRyn email account disabled. (LN) (Entered: 12/21/2022)
12/19/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gipson, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2022)
07/19/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	SCHEDULING ORDER: Claim Construction Hearing set for 5/22/2023 01:30 PM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. (SEE WRITTEN SCHEDULING ORDER.) Entered by Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught on 7/15/2022. (GL) (Entered: 07/19/2022)
07/15/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught: Scheduling Conference held 7/15/2022 via telephone. Attorneys Nathan R. VanRyn and Matthew J. Gipson present on behalf of the Plaintiff. Attorney Gregory Schodde present on behalf of Defendant. Possible conflict of Magistrate-Judge McNaught regarding trademark issue discussed. Parties are in agreement that a conflict does not exist. Court's proposed discovery plan stated. Scheduling Order to follow. Patent issues discussed. This case has not been consolidated and therefore the Scheduling Order in this case will not be consolidated with Design Ideas, Ltd. v Target Corp, No. 20-3231-SEM EIL. ESI protocols addressed and order to follow in Scheduling Order. The parties have agreed to an order being entered pursuant to FRE 502(d), which will be addressed in the Scheduling Order. Parties to submit to the Court an agreed proposed Protective Order. Parties will file a motion if discovery disputes arise or a settlement conference is needed. (GL) (Entered: 07/15/2022) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught: Scheduling Conference held 7/15/2022 via telephone. Attorneys Nathan R. VanRyn and Matthew J. Gipson present on behalf of the Plaintiff. Attorney Gregory Schodde present on behalf of Defendant. Possible conflict of Magistrate-Judge McNaught regarding trademark issue discussed. Parties are in agreement that a conflict does not exist. Court's proposed discovery plan stated. Scheduling Order to follow. Patent issues discussed. This case has not been consolidated and therefore the Scheduling Order in this case will not be consolidated with Design Ideas, Ltd. v Target Corp, No. 20-3231-SEM EIL. ESI protocols addressed and order to follow in Scheduling Order. The parties have agreed to an order being entered pursuant to FRE 502(d), which will be addressed in the Scheduling Order. Parties to submit to the Court an agreed proposed Protective Order. Parties will file a motion if discovery disputes arise or a settlement conference is needed. (GL) (Entered: 07/15/2022)
07/13/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company. (Gipson, Matthew) (Entered: 07/13/2022)
06/23/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	TEXT ORDER by US Magistrate Judge Karen McNaught: Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule 16 conference 43 is ALLOWED. A Rule 16 conference is set for July 15, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone. The Court will place the call. The parties shall jointly prepare a proposed scheduling order and file the proposed order by July 13, 2022. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall file a notification explaining the nature of the disagreement. Entered by Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught on 6/23/2022. (GL) (Entered: 06/23/2022) TEXT ORDER by US Magistrate Judge Karen McNaught: Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule 16 conference 43 is ALLOWED. A Rule 16 conference is set for July 15, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone. The Court will place the call. The parties shall jointly prepare a proposed scheduling order and file the proposed order by July 13, 2022. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall file a notification explaining the nature of the disagreement. Entered by Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught on 6/23/2022. (GL) (Entered: 06/23/2022)
06/03/22	Knape Vogt Mfg Co v. Design Ideas Ltd 3:22-CV-03014 ( C.D. IL )	RESPONSE to Motion re 43 MOTION for a Rule 16 Conference filed by Plaintiff Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company, Counter Defendant Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company. (Gipson, Matthew) (Entered: 06/03/2022)