Videndum PLC

General

Total Cases7

Active Cases--

Patents7

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

videndumproductionsolutions

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L5

E

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
12/11/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,197,257 B2; 10,197,258 B2; 10,845,044 B2. (Attachments: # [1] Stipulation of Dismissal)(ceg) (Entered: 12/11/2024)
12/11/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,197,257 B2; 10,197,258 B2; 10,845,044 B2. (Attachments: # [1] Stipulation of Dismissal)(ceg) (Entered: 12/11/2024)
12/11/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, re [128] Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 12/11/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 12/11/2024)
12/11/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, re [128] Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 12/11/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 12/11/2024)
12/06/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Rotolight Limited. (O'Kelly, Sean) (Entered: 12/06/2024)
12/06/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Rotolight Limited. (O'Kelly, Sean) (Entered: 12/06/2024)
11/07/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The parties' Status Report and Assented to Joint Stipulation and Order to Extend Time (D.I. [126] ) is REJECTED. The Court previously ordered that "[t]he parties may file an amended stipulation that maintains the trial date and case dispositive motions deadline (or maintains the trial date and eliminates summary judgment motions)." (D.I. 119.) The proposed schedule does not maintain the case dispositive motions deadline. The parties may re-submit a new proposed stipulation and order that does not alter the deadlines relating to case dispositive motions. Alternatively, the parties may agree to forgo summary judgment motions or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, who may be able to accommodate the parties' scheduling requests. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 11/7/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 11/07/2024) ORAL ORDER: The parties' Status Report and Assented to Joint Stipulation and Order to Extend Time (D.I. [126] ) is REJECTED. The Court previously ordered that "[t]he parties may file an amended stipulation that maintains the trial date and case dispositive motions deadline (or maintains the trial date and eliminates summary judgment motions)." (D.I. 119.) The proposed schedule does not maintain the case dispositive motions deadline. The parties may re-submit a new proposed stipulation and order that does not alter the deadlines relating to case dispositive motions. Alternatively, the parties may agree to forgo summary judgment motions or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, who may be able to accommodate the parties' scheduling requests. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 11/7/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/07/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The parties' Status Report and Assented to Joint Stipulation and Order to Extend Time (D.I. [126] ) is REJECTED. The Court previously ordered that "[t]he parties may file an amended stipulation that maintains the trial date and case dispositive motions deadline (or maintains the trial date and eliminates summary judgment motions)." (D.I. 119.) The proposed schedule does not maintain the case dispositive motions deadline. The parties may re-submit a new proposed stipulation and order that does not alter the deadlines relating to case dispositive motions. Alternatively, the parties may agree to forgo summary judgment motions or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, who may be able to accommodate the parties' scheduling requests. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 11/7/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 11/07/2024) ORAL ORDER: The parties' Status Report and Assented to Joint Stipulation and Order to Extend Time (D.I. [126] ) is REJECTED. The Court previously ordered that "[t]he parties may file an amended stipulation that maintains the trial date and case dispositive motions deadline (or maintains the trial date and eliminates summary judgment motions)." (D.I. 119.) The proposed schedule does not maintain the case dispositive motions deadline. The parties may re-submit a new proposed stipulation and order that does not alter the deadlines relating to case dispositive motions. Alternatively, the parties may agree to forgo summary judgment motions or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, who may be able to accommodate the parties' scheduling requests. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 11/7/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/06/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	Joint STATUS REPORT AND ASSENTED TO JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME by Rotolight Limited. (O'Kelly, Sean) (Entered: 11/06/2024)
11/06/24	Rotolight Ltd v. Videndum PLC 1:22-CV-00928 ( D. DE )	Joint STATUS REPORT AND ASSENTED TO JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME by Rotolight Limited. (O'Kelly, Sean) (Entered: 11/06/2024)