Si Pedestal Corp

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

Courts--

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
03/04/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	Letter Response to Pre-Motion Conference Request by Hanover Architectural Products, Hanover Prest-Paving Company (Schwartz, Joshua) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
02/27/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	Third MOTION for pre motion conference for Inequitable Conduct and Motion to Dismiss by SI Pedestal, Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Plaintiff's Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 7386955 Reexamination Certificate, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 7386955 Reexamination Office Action, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Plaintiff's Amendment to 7386955 in 1:21-cv-01672, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Plaintiff's 7386955 Reexamination Motions in 1:21-cv-01672, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Plaintiff's Attorneys' Admissions in 1:23-cv-07351, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Defendant's Attorney's Declaration in Support) (Furlow, Harold) (Entered: 02/27/2024) Third MOTION for pre motion conference for Inequitable Conduct and Motion to Dismiss by SI Pedestal, Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Plaintiff's Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 7386955 Reexamination Certificate, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 7386955 Reexamination Office Action, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Plaintiff's Amendment to 7386955 in 1:21-cv-01672, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Plaintiff's 7386955 Reexamination Motions in 1:21-cv-01672, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Plaintiff's Attorneys' Admissions in 1:23-cv-07351, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Defendant's Attorney's Declaration in Support) (Furlow, Harold) (Entered: 02/27/2024)
02/07/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Joshua Schwartz and Harold Furlow present by telephone. Case management order approved. Next conference 5/2/24 at 10:30am (same dial-in and access code). Initial Conference Hearing held on 2/7/2024. (AM) (Entered: 02/07/2024)
02/06/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	ATTORNEY QUESTIONNAIRES (Schwartz, Joshua) (Entered: 02/06/2024)
02/06/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	ORDER denying pre-motion conference request 20 : After having filed an answer 9, Defendant now seeks to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In furtherance of its proposed motion, Defendant asks the court to consider two cease and desist letters, the interview summary for and amendment to Plaintiff's 11/599,055 patent application, and two sworn declarations. Though Plaintiff incorporated the June 2023 cease and desist letter by reference in its complaint (see Compl. Â¶ 22), the Court finds no basis for considering the other documents cited by Defendant at the motion to dismiss stage. Therefore, even if, assuming arguendo, Defendant's request to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion were timely, Defendant's stated basis for its anticipated motion to dismiss relies on evidence and documents outside the complaint. Such a motion would be converted to one for summary judgment. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Once the District Court was presented with matters outside the pleadings, Rule 12(b) afforded two options. The court could have excluded the extrinsic documents. Because it elected not to do so, however, the court was obligated to convert the motion to one for summary judgment and give the parties an opportunity to conduct appropriate discovery and submit the additional supporting material contemplated by Rule 56."). Therefore, the Court denies the request for a pre-motion conference 20 with leave to renew. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 2/6/2024. (MM) (Entered: 02/06/2024) ORDER denying pre-motion conference request 20 : After having filed an answer 9, Defendant now seeks to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In furtherance of its proposed motion, Defendant asks the court to consider two cease and desist letters, the interview summary for and amendment to Plaintiff's 11/599,055 patent application, and two sworn declarations. Though Plaintiff incorporated the June 2023 cease and desist letter by reference in its complaint (see Compl. Â¶ 22), the Court finds no basis for considering the other documents cited by Defendant at the motion to dismiss stage. Therefore, even if, assuming arguendo, Defendant's request to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion were timely, Defendant's stated basis for its anticipated motion to dismiss relies on evidence and documents outside the complaint. Such a motion would be converted to one for summary judgment. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Once the District Court was presented with matters outside the pleadings, Rule 12(b) afforded two options. The court could have excluded the extrinsic documents. Because it elected not to do so, however, the court was obligated to convert the motion to one for summary judgment and give the parties an opportunity to conduct appropriate discovery and submit the additional supporting material contemplated by Rule 56."). Therefore, the Court denies the request for a pre-motion conference 20 with leave to renew. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 2/6/2024. (MM) (Entered: 02/06/2024)
02/02/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	Letter by Hanover Architectural Products, Hanover Prest-Paving Company (Schwartz, Joshua) (Entered: 02/02/2024)
01/29/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	Second MOTION for pre motion conference filed by SI Pedestal, Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Complaint and Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiff's Cease and Desist Letters, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiff's Interview Summary and Amendment, # 4 Exhibit Defendant's Declarations) (Furlow, Harold) (Entered: 01/29/2024)
01/24/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	ORDER denying pre-motion conference request 19 : After having filed an answer 9, Defendant now seeks to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based on extrinsic evidence, without affording Plaintiff the opportunity of discovery. See ECF 15, [15-1], [15-2], [15-3]. Even if, assuming arguendo, Defendant's request to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion were timely, Defendant's stated basis for its anticipated motion to dismiss relies on evidence and documents outside the complaint, i.e. a series of photographs and declarations submitted as exhibits to the proposed motion to dismiss (ECF [15-2]). Such a motion would be converted to one for summary judgment. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Once the District Court was presented with matters outside the pleadings, Rule 12(b) afforded two options. The court could have excluded the extrinsic documents. Because it elected not to do so, however, the court was obligated to convert the motion to one for summary judgment and give the parties an opportunity to conduct appropriate discovery and submit the additional supporting material contemplated by Rule 56."). Therefore, the Court denies the request for a pre-motion conference 19 with leave to renew. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 1/24/2024. (MM) (Entered: 01/24/2024) ORDER denying pre-motion conference request 19 : After having filed an answer 9, Defendant now seeks to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based on extrinsic evidence, without affording Plaintiff the opportunity of discovery. See ECF 15, [15-1], [15-2], [15-3]. Even if, assuming arguendo, Defendant's request to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion were timely, Defendant's stated basis for its anticipated motion to dismiss relies on evidence and documents outside the complaint, i.e. a series of photographs and declarations submitted as exhibits to the proposed motion to dismiss (ECF [15-2]). Such a motion would be converted to one for summary judgment. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Once the District Court was presented with matters outside the pleadings, Rule 12(b) afforded two options. The court could have excluded the extrinsic documents. Because it elected not to do so, however, the court was obligated to convert the motion to one for summary judgment and give the parties an opportunity to conduct appropriate discovery and submit the additional supporting material contemplated by Rule 56."). Therefore, the Court denies the request for a pre-motion conference 19 with leave to renew. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 1/24/2024. (MM) (Entered: 01/24/2024)
01/23/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	Letter to The Honorable Orelia Merchant by Hanover Architectural Products, Hanover Prest-Paving Company (Schwartz, Joshua) (Entered: 01/23/2024)
01/23/24	Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Si Pedestal Corp 1:23-CV-07351 ( E.D. NY )	NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph R Falcon, III on behalf of Hanover Architectural Products, Hanover Prest-Paving Company (notification declined or already on case) (Falcon, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2024)