Miotox LLC v. Allergan, Inc. et al
Miotox LLC |
Allergan Botox Limited, Allergan, Inc. and Does |
Allergan Botox Limited and Allergan, Inc. |
Miotox LLC |
2:2014cv08723 |
November 10, 2014 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Patrick J. Walsh |
Otis D. Wright |
Patent |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 286 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SETTLEMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The parties to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, no later than May 31, 2017, why settlement has not been finalized. The Court will discharge this order upon the filing of a dismissal that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (lc) |
Filing 267 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER ('060 PATENT) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court adopts ALLERGAN's construction and construes the term "Migraine Associated Vertigo" as used in Claim 1 of the '060 patent to mean: "A migrai ne-associated disease condition in which (1) a person feels dizziness and/or that he himself or his environment is moving or spinning and (2) the person does not have a classic migraine headache or has a chronic non-specific headache that does not fit into any migraine classification developed by the International Headache Society." (lom) |
Filing 250 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 248 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. For the foregoing reasons, Miotox's Application to File Under Seal is GRANTED 248 . Miotox is directed to file and serve the document bearing Bates numbers AGN-MTX-27884 to AGN-MTX-27989 pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(c) and 79-5.3. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) |
Filing 230 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE 229 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court orders as follows: (1) The October 16, 2015 deadline to submit a joint proposed case schedule is VACATED; and (2) On or before December 15, 2015, the parties shall submit either a proposed case schedule, or a joint report showing cause as to why additional time is needed to submit a proposed case schedule. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) |
Filing 228 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 59 AND GRANTINGDEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 61 . Per the Courts initial scheduling Order (ECF No. 45) the parties shall file a joint proposed schedule for the remaining issues in the case by October 16, 2015 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc) |
Filing 43 ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: denying 27 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. (shb) |
Filing 35 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below,that this Stipulated Protective Order does no t entitle them to file confidentialinformation under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. (See document for further details). re Stipulation for Protective Order 33 (sbou) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.