Nintendo America Inc. v. Daniel Man Tik Chan et al
||Nintendo America Inc.
||Daniel Man Tik Chan and Inspire Electronics, Inc.
||June 12, 2009
||California Central District Court
||Western Division - Los Angeles Office
||XX US, Outside California
|Nature of Suit:
||Intellectual Property - Copyrights
||28:1338 Copyright Infringement
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|August 20, 2009||40|| FINAL JUDGMENT ON CONSENT by Judge John F. Walter: Based on Defendants consent to the judgment, the Court enters judgment as follows: (1) Plaintiff is awarded judgment against Defendants Inspire Electronics, Inc., and Daniel Chan in the amount of 36;1,100,000. Daniel Chan and Inspire Electronics, Inc. are jointly and severally liable for this judgment. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees. in favor of Nintendo America Inc. against Inspire Electronics, Inc., Daniel Man Tik Chan. Related to: Notice of Lodging 37 . (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)|
|August 5, 2009||32|| ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION by Judge John F. Walter: THE COURT has been advised by counsel that this action has been settled, or is in the process of being settled. that this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the right, upon good caus e shown within 45 days, to re-open the action if settlement is not consummated. During this 45 day period, this Court retains full jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall not prejudice any party to this action. In the event a motion or ex parte application to re-open is not filed within 45 days, the dismissal of this action will be with prejudice. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)|
|July 21, 2009||30|| ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge John F. Walter: Court GRANTS NOA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. IT is further ordered that NOA shall post a bond in the amount of $50,000 to secure payment of any damages sustained by Defendants if they are later found to have been wrongfully enjoined. Note changes in document made by the Court. (se)|
Last Document Downloaded: April 2, 2010 02:39:26 PDT
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER