Cisco Systems Inc. v. SynQor Inc.
Plaintiff: Cisco Systems Inc.
Defendant: SynQor Inc.
Case Number: 1:2011cv00086
Filed: January 26, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Delaware
Office: Wilmington Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Harvey Bartle
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION re 10 Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to Transfer. Signed by Judge Harvey Bartle, III on 4/1/2011. (nms)
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 is required.

Access this case on the Delaware District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cisco Systems Inc. v. SynQor Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: SynQor Inc.
Represented By: Michael D. Hatcher
Represented By: Stephanie P. Koh
Represented By: Thomas D. Rein
Represented By: Philip A. Rovner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cisco Systems Inc.
Represented By: Ramy E. Hanna
Represented By: Jack B. Blumenfeld
Represented By: Rodger Dallery Smith, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?