Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases--

Patents--

CourtsD. Nevada

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
12/10/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	AO 120 - REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding a patent or trademark. E-mailed to the US Patent and Trademark Office. (Attachments: # [1] Stipulation of Dismissal) (MR)
12/09/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	ORDER Granting [134] Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/9/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
12/08/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation. (Gallagher, Kristen)
12/07/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/7/2020. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation's [132] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Notice purportedly dismisses this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and 41(c). However, under Rule 41(a), a party may only dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Here, Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd. has already filed an [84] Answer. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, or else a joint status report informing the court of the status of dismissal. MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/7/2020. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation's [132] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Notice purportedly dismisses this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and 41(c). However, under Rule 41(a), a party may only dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Here, Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd. has already filed an [84] Answer. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, or else a joint status report informing the court of the status of dismissal.
12/02/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation. With Prejudice (Gallagher, Kristen)
11/10/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation. (Gallagher, Kristen)
10/27/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	ORDER granting nunc pro tunc [128] Stipulation. ORDER denying as moot [129] Motion to Extend Time. The parties believe that an approximate three- week postponement will be sufficient to work out the agreement. the Parties agree to jointly file a notice with the Court on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 with the status of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/27/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM) Modified text on 10/27/2020 (MMM). ORDER granting nunc pro tunc [128] Stipulation. ORDER denying as moot [129] Motion to Extend Time. The parties believe that an approximate three- week postponement will be sufficient to work out the agreement. the Parties agree to jointly file a notice with the Court on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 with the status of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/27/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM) Modified text on 10/27/2020 (MMM).
10/26/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time (First Request) for 2-Business-Day Extension of Deadline for Submitting Claim Construction Tutorial Exhibits re [124] Minute Order,,, [125] Minute Order by Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,. (Kliewer, Nicholas)
10/20/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Sixth or more Request) Stipulation and Order for Modification of Schedule on Claim Construction Hearing Matters re [124] Minute Order,,, [125] Minute Order by Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,. (Kliewer, Nicholas)
10/06/20	Konecranes Global Corp v. Mode Tech Beijing Co Ltd 2:18-CV-02015 ( D. NV )	MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/6/2020. Pending before the Court is Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd.'s ("Defendant's") Motion for Leave to File Surreply, (ECF No. [121] ). In the Motion, Defendant seeks to file a sur-reply to alleged new arguments raised in Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation's ("Plaintiff's") [120] Claim Construction Reply Brief. (See Mot. Leave File 1:26-2:6, ECF No. [121] ). "A sur-reply may only be filed by leave of court, and only to address new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to respond." Kanvick v. City of Reno, No. 3:06-cv-00058, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24719, 2008 WL 873085, at 1, n.1 (D. Nev. March 27, 2008) (emphasis added). Furthermore, sur-replies "are highly disfavored, as they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmovant to have the last word on a matter." Lacher v. W., 147 F.Supp.2d 538, 539 (N.D. Tex. 2001).Here, the Court finds that Defendant will have an opportunity to address Plaintiff's alleged new arguments at the Claim Construction Hearing. The Court therefore does not find a sur-reply necessary to aid in its decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion, (ECF No. [121] ) is DENIED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DZ) MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/6/2020. Pending before the Court is Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd.'s ("Defendant's") Motion for Leave to File Surreply, (ECF No. [121] ). In the Motion, Defendant seeks to file a sur-reply to alleged new arguments raised in Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation's ("Plaintiff's") [120] Claim Construction Reply Brief. (See Mot. Leave File 1:26-2:6, ECF No. [121] ). "A sur-reply may only be filed by leave of court, and only to address new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to respond." Kanvick v. City of Reno, No. 3:06-cv-00058, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24719, 2008 WL 873085, at 1, n.1 (D. Nev. March 27, 2008) (emphasis added). Furthermore, sur-replies "are highly disfavored, as they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmovant to have the last word on a matter." Lacher v. W., 147 F.Supp.2d 538, 539 (N.D. Tex. 2001).Here, the Court finds that Defendant will have an opportunity to address Plaintiff's alleged new arguments at the Claim Construction Hearing. The Court therefore does not find a sur-reply necessary to aid in its decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion, (ECF No. [121] ) is DENIED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DZ)