Canon Inc. et al v. Tesseron Ltd. et al
| Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc. |
| Tesseron Ltd., Industrial Print Technologies L.L.C. and Forrest P. Gauthier |
| 1:2014cv05462 |
| July 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Suffolk |
| Denise L. Cote |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
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
203
OPINION & ORDER.....Plaintiffs September 23, 2015 motion for summary judgment on their two claims for declaratory judgment -- on the validity of the 2015 Sublicense and the issue of patent exhaustion -- as well as on defendants counterclaim for violation of the good faith and fair dealing is granted. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11/19/2015) (gr)
|
|
Filing
166
OPINION & ORDER.....Defendants June 12 motion to amend is denied. Plaintiffs January 26 motion and defendants February 20 cross-motion for summary judgment on the two claims for declaratory judgment are denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/24/2015) (gr)
|
|
Filing
150
OPINION & ORDER #105602....Plaintiffs January 26, 2015 motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim premised on Section 7.03(c) is granted. Defendants February 20 cross-motion is accordingly denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 6/24/2015) (gr) Modified on 6/24/2015 (ca).
|
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 New York Southern 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.
