Pegasus Imaging Corporation v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. et al
| Pegasus Imaging Corporation |
| Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and Allscripts, LLC |
| 8:2008cv01770 |
| September 8, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Copyright Office |
| Hillsborough |
| Elizabeth A. Jenkins |
| James S. Moody |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 17:101 Copyright Infringement |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
271
ORDER directing Clerk to close the case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/13/2010. (LN)
|
|
Filing
243
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Proffered Report and Testimony of Ralph Oman 201 and Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Legal Experts 219 are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants&# 039; Motion in Limine and Rule 37 Motion to Exclude the Exhibits to the Declaration of Evelyn Ashley 206 is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice 184 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Relating to Entry of Default Against Defendants 207 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Relating to Defendants' First and Second Counterclaims 208 is GRANTED without prejudice. Defendants' Mot ion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Originality of Product Versions Not at Issue 209 is GRANTED to the extent that in proving the issue of originality, Plaintiff is limited to introducing evidence of the originality of the Smartscan Xpress Barcode or Barcode Express software toolkits prior to the entering of the License Agreement at issue in this case. The Court RESERVES RULING on Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Copyright Infringement if the License Agreement Is Held to Be Valid with Regard to Defendants 210 . The Court RESERVES RULING on Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Regarding Alleged Multiple Installations Per License and Per Se rver 211 . Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Or to Limit Evidence Regarding the Presence of Smartscan Xpress in Defendants' Products 212 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Relating to Pac kaging of Their Products and Consumer Confusion 213 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion in Limine and Rule 37 Motion to Exclude Documents Related to Gentriqs GMBH Not Produced During Discovery 214 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence at Trial of Revenues Related to Service, Maintenance, and Support for Impact.MD and Touchworks 215 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion in Limine and Rule 37 Motion to Exclude Evidence at Trial of Gross Revenue of Defendants From Pr oducts Unrelated to Impact.MD or Touchworks Scan 216 is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff cannot discuss Defendants' revenues that relate to products that do not contain Plaintiff's toolkit/software. The Court also ruled that five (5) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendants a list of Defendants' products that Plaintiff contends contain Plaintiff's toolkit/software. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence, Comment or Argumen t Relating to Penalties or Other Improper Measures of Damages 217 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Relating to Defendants' Alleged Intent to Breach the License Agreement or Infringe Any Purported C opyright 218 is GRANTED. Defendants' Amended Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Steven Mark Shugan 233 is DENIED without prejudice to raise objections at trial. Defendants' Sealed Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert David Collins is DENIED, however, Mr. Collins shall only be used by Plaintiff in rebuttal as necessary. Defendants' Sealed Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert L. Vigil is DENIED. Defendants' Amende d Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony of Matthew J. Decker 232 is DENIED without prejudice to raise objections at trial. Regarding the parties' objections to deposition designations, the parties shall confer on this issue and file amended ob jections to deposition designations no later than this Friday, February 26, 2010. Plaintiff shall notify the Court one week from the date of this Order whether it will withdraw its copyright claims. If Plaintiff does not withdraw its copyright claims, then, at trial, the Court will take evidence of the validity of the License Agreement first. (See Order for further instructions and details.) Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 2/24/2010. (LN)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 142 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 163 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 166 is DENIED, with the exception that the Court is granting summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor on Defendants' 10th and 17th Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 2/9/2010. (LN)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER denying 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 6/23/2009. (LN)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER granting 13 Defendants' Motion to set aside defaults. The Clerk is directed to vacate the Entries of Default against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. 11 and Allscripts, LLC 12 . Defendants shall electronically file an answer to the complaint within 10 days. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 4/3/2009. (LN)
|
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 Florida Middle 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.
