MRI Software LLC v. Lynx Systems Inc.

Plaintiff: MRI Software LLC
Defendant: Lynx Systems Inc.
Case Number: 1:2012cv01082
Filed: May 1, 2012
Court: Ohio Northern District Court
Office: Cleveland Office
County: Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge: Christopher A. Boyko
Nature of Suit: Copyrights
Cause of Action: 17:501
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 29, 2014 137 Opinion or Order of the Court Opinion and Order. Defendant Lynx Systems' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Related doc # 97 ) is denied. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 9/29/2014. (H,CM)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MRI Software LLC v. Lynx Systems Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MRI Software LLC
Represented By: Georgia K.E. Yanchar
Represented By: Daniel J. McMullen
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Lynx Systems Inc.
Represented By: Matthew J. Cavanagh
Represented By: John T. McLandrich
Represented By: David T. Movius
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 [ 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.