Presentime Co

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases--

Patents--

CourtsS.D. Florida

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
06/02/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 49 PAPERLESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: DENYING 46 Motion for Attorney Fees, and Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 6/1/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw) Modified on 6/2/2023 (caw). (Entered: 06/02/2023)
03/27/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	PAPERLESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE. This matter is before the Court upon 46 Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (the "Motion"). In the Motion, Defendant seeks attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, which allows for prevailing party attorney's fees in exceptional cases. See generally ECF No. 46 ; see also35 U.S.C. § 285. Defendant argues that it is the prevailing party in this patent action based on 39 the Court's Order dismissing Defendant without prejudice after Plaintiff filed its 35 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. See ECF No. [46-1] at 6; see also ECF Nos. 35 at 1, 39 at 1. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that Defendant is not the prevailing party. See ECF No. 48 at 10.To determine whether Defendant is a prevailing party under § 285, the Court must consider whether Plaintiff's efforts to effect a material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant were rejected. See Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Simon Props. Gp., L.P. v. Taylor, No. 20-14374, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2021). Here, Defendant is not the prevailing party because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), so that there was no material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant. See ECF No. 35 at 1; see also Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) did not require a Court order and, rather, was effective upon filing. See Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Accordingly, the Motion should be DENIED.Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this District. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2022); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2023 Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 3/27/2023. (jve) (Entered: 03/27/2023) PAPERLESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE. This matter is before the Court upon 46 Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (the "Motion"). In the Motion, Defendant seeks attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, which allows for prevailing party attorney's fees in exceptional cases. See generally ECF No. 46 ; see also35 U.S.C. § 285. Defendant argues that it is the prevailing party in this patent action based on 39 the Court's Order dismissing Defendant without prejudice after Plaintiff filed its 35 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. See ECF No. [46-1] at 6; see also ECF Nos. 35 at 1, 39 at 1. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that Defendant is not the prevailing party. See ECF No. 48 at 10.To determine whether Defendant is a prevailing party under § 285, the Court must consider whether Plaintiff's efforts to effect a material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant were rejected. See Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Simon Props. Gp., L.P. v. Taylor, No. 20-14374, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2021). Here, Defendant is not the prevailing party because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), so that there was no material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant. See ECF No. 35 at 1; see also Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) did not require a Court order and, rather, was effective upon filing. See Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Accordingly, the Motion should be DENIED.Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this District. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2022); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2023 Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 3/27/2023. (jve) (Entered: 03/27/2023)
03/27/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	PAPERLESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE. This matter is before the Court upon 46 Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (the "Motion"). In the Motion, Defendant seeks attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 285, which allows for prevailing party attorney's fees in exceptional cases. See generally ECF No. 46 ; see also35 U.S.C. Â§ 285. Defendant argues that it is the prevailing party in this patent action based on 39 the Court's Order dismissing Defendant without prejudice after Plaintiff filed its 35 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. See ECF No. [46-1] at 6; see also ECF Nos. 35 at 1, 39 at 1. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that Defendant is not the prevailing party. See ECF No. 48 at 10.To determine whether Defendant is a prevailing party under Â§ 285, the Court must consider whether Plaintiff's efforts to effect a material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant were rejected. See Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Simon Props. Gp., L.P. v. Taylor, No. 20-14374, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2021). Here, Defendant is not the prevailing party because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), so that there was no material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant. See ECF No. 35 at 1; see also Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) did not require a Court order and, rather, was effective upon filing. See Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Accordingly, the Motion should be DENIED.Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this District. 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2022); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2023 Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 3/27/2023. (jve) (Entered: 03/27/2023) PAPERLESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE. This matter is before the Court upon 46 Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (the "Motion"). In the Motion, Defendant seeks attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 285, which allows for prevailing party attorney's fees in exceptional cases. See generally ECF No. 46 ; see also35 U.S.C. Â§ 285. Defendant argues that it is the prevailing party in this patent action based on 39 the Court's Order dismissing Defendant without prejudice after Plaintiff filed its 35 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. See ECF No. [46-1] at 6; see also ECF Nos. 35 at 1, 39 at 1. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that Defendant is not the prevailing party. See ECF No. 48 at 10.To determine whether Defendant is a prevailing party under Â§ 285, the Court must consider whether Plaintiff's efforts to effect a material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant were rejected. See Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Simon Props. Gp., L.P. v. Taylor, No. 20-14374, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2021). Here, Defendant is not the prevailing party because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), so that there was no material alteration in its legal relationship with Defendant. See ECF No. 35 at 1; see also Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) did not require a Court order and, rather, was effective upon filing. See Taylor, 2021 WL 4432686, at 2. Accordingly, the Motion should be DENIED.Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this District. 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2022); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2023 Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 3/27/2023. (jve) (Entered: 03/27/2023)
03/20/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	RESPONSE in Opposition re 46 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Centre Way Company Limited.. Replies due by 3/27/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of Palmer, # 2 Exhibit 1 of Decl. of Palmer)(Palmer, Andrew) (Entered: 03/20/2023)
03/13/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	ORDER REFERRING 46 MOTION for Attorney's Fees filed by Presentime & Co. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle for appropriate disposition or recommendation. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 3/10/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw) (Entered: 03/13/2023)
03/06/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	MOTION for Attorney Fees by Presentime & Co. Responses due by 3/20/2023 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1-A, # 3 Exhibit 1-B, # 4 Exhibit 1-C, # 5 Exhibit 2)(Scheller, Fritz) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/03/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	PAPERLESS ORDER granting 44 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney Anthony H. Handal. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 3/3/2023. (eca) (Entered: 03/03/2023)
03/03/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Anthony Handal. Pay.gov Agency Tracking ID FLSDC-16343634. Filing Fee $ 200.00 by Presentime & Co. Attorney Fritz Joseph Scheller added to party Presentime & Co(pty:dft). Responses due by 3/17/2023 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Scheller, Fritz) (Entered: 03/03/2023)
03/03/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	Notice of Entry of Parties Listed NOTE: New Filer(s) will appear twice, since they are also a new party in the case. New Filer(s)/Party(s): YunBin Direction, Presentime & Co, KONGS KIND KING, AYRELY, SZELAM, yaolonggon, Clock House, Feuyan, uwellstore, SCOAGE and Rscolila. (Palmer, Andrew) (Entered: 03/03/2023)
02/22/23	The Schedule A 0:22-CV-61705 ( S.D. FL )	ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 40 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney Anthony H. Handal. By 3/3/2023, the Plaintiff must add all the Defendants as parties through CM-ECF. Local counsel may submit a renewed motion for admission to appear pro hac vice by 3/6/2023. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 2/21/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw) (Entered: 02/22/2023) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 40 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney Anthony H. Handal. By 3/3/2023, the Plaintiff must add all the Defendants as parties through CM-ECF. Local counsel may submit a renewed motion for admission to appear pro hac vice by 3/6/2023. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 2/21/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw) (Entered: 02/22/2023)