Knauf Insulation LLC
General
Total Cases3
Active Cases--
Patents111
Ratings
Experience
Grade
Trend
DCT
L2
D
PTAB
L5
A
CAFC
--
--
--
Analytics
Cases
Litigated Patents
Ratings Trends
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
---|---|---|
08/22/24 | FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 58 - All claims and counterclaims having now been resolved in this action, the Court now enters FINAL JUDGMENT: Judgment is entered against Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Knauf Insulation GmbH, Knauf Insulation SPRL, and Knauf Insulation, LLC (collectively, "Knauf") and in favor of Defendants/Counter-Claimants Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc. (together, "JM") on the following claims of the Fifth Amended Complaint: Count I for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,114,210; Count II for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,940,089; Count III for infringement of U.S. Patent D631,670; Count IV for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,039,827; Count VI for infringement of U.S. Patent 9,464,207; and Count IX for infringement of U.S. Patent 9,926,464. The following counterclaims of the First Amended Answer and Counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice: Counterclaim III for Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability as to only the '464 Patent; and Counterclaim VI for Bad Faith Assertion of a Claim of Patent Infringement. JM withdrew Counterclaim IV for False Marking of the First Amended Answer and Counterclaims. All remaining claims and counterclaims have been resolved through settlement and joint dismissal with prejudice. Judgment is entered accordingly, and this action is TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/22/2024.(DWH) (Entered: 08/22/2024) | |
08/22/24 | ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE - Based on all the above considerations, the Court finds that vacatur of the SJ/CC Order is not appropriate here. To put it mildly, this complex dispute has been zealously litigated by both sides. The quality of work has been impressive, and the sheer quantity of the motions practice has been substantial. The Court applauds the parties for their professionalism and ability to ultimately resolve this case short of trial. But for the reasons explained above, the Court concludes that Knauf's Conditionally Unopposed Motion to Vacate in Anticipation of Settlement and Dismissal (Filing No. 1299 ) should be DENIED (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/22/2024. (DWH) (Entered: 08/22/2024) | |
08/22/24 | ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS - This matter has come before the Court upon the Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 1298 ). The Court, being fully advised, finds that good cause exists and GRANTS the Parties' motion. It is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), all claims, counterclaims, and defenses that could have been asserted in this action are dismissed with prejudice, and each side shall bear their own costs and fees, including all attorney fees. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 08/22/2024. (AJG) (Entered: 08/22/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER granting 1246 MOTION to Maintain Document Under Seal. The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Numbers 1245, 1245-1, and 1245-2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (LBT) (Entered: 08/19/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - Defendants authorize the unsealing of Docket Number 1242-1. The motion is DENIED as to that document. Defendants have submitted appropriately redacted versions of Docket Numbers 1242 and 1242-2, [Dkt. 1293-1 and Dkt. 1293-2], and the Court finds good cause for the sealing of the redacted information. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to those docket numbers. In summary, the Clerk shall UNSEAL Docket Number 1242-1. The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Numbers 1242 and 1242-2. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-11(g), documents ordered unsealed by this Order shall be unsealed after 21 days absent a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) objection, a motion to reconsider, an appeal, or further court order. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (JSR) (Entered: 08/19/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - This matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Maintain Under Seal Re: Filing No. 1266 . [Dkt. 1286 .] The parties have submitted an appropriately redacted version of the document, [Dkt. 1286-1], and the Court finds good cause for the sealing of the redacted information. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Number 1266 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (JSR) (Entered: 08/19/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Maintain Documents Under Seal Regarding Filings Nos. 1271 and 1271-1. [Dkt. 1273 .] Defendants identified themselves as the designating parties for the documents at issue. Defendants have submitted appropriately redacted versions of the documents, [Dkt. 1272 and 1272-2], and the Court finds good cause for the sealing of the redacted information. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Numbers 1271 and 1271-1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (JSR) (Entered: 08/19/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Maintain Documents Under Seal Re ECF No. 1269 and Exhibits Thereto. [Dkt. 1270 .] Plaintiffs identify Defendants as the designating parties for the document at issue in this motion, Docket Numbers 1269 , 1269-1, and 1269-2. Defendants authorize the unsealing of Docket Number 1269. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to that document. Defendants have submitted appropriately redacted versions of the remaining documents, [Dkt. 1297-1 and 1297-2], and the Court finds good cause for the sealing of the redacted information. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to those documents. The Clerk shall UNSEAL Docket Number 1269 . The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Numbers 1269-1 and 1269-2. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-11(g), documents ordered unsealed by this Order shall be unsealed after 21 days absent a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) objection, a motion to reconsider, an appeal, or further court order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (JSR) (Entered: 08/19/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Maintain Documents Under Seal Re ECF No. 1269 and Exhibits Thereto. [Dkt. 1270 .] Plaintiffs identify Defendants as the designating parties for the document at issue in this motion, Docket Numbers 1269, 1269-1, and 1269-2. Defendants authorize the unsealing of Docket Number 1269. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to that document. Defendants have submitted appropriately redacted versions of the remaining documents, [Dkt. 1297-1 and 1297-2], and the Court finds good cause for the sealing of the redacted information. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to those documents. The Clerk shall UNSEAL Docket Number 1269 . The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Numbers 1269-1 and 1269-2. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-11(g), documents ordered unsealed by this Order shall be unsealed after 21 days absent a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) objection, a motion to reconsider, an appeal, or further court order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (JSR) (Entered: 08/19/2024) | |
08/19/24 | ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL - This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Maintain Documents Under Seal Re ECF No. 1254 . [Dkt. 1255 .] Plaintiffs identify both parties as the designating parties for the document at issue in this motion. The parties have submitted an appropriately redacted version of the document, [Dkt. 1292-1], and the Court finds good cause for the sealing of the redacted information. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall PERMANENTLY SEAL Docket Number 1254 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2024. (JSR) (Entered: 08/19/2024) |