Emtel, Inc. v. LipidLabs, Inc. et al
| Emtel, Inc. |
| LipidLabs, Inc., Specialists On Call, Inc., Tele-Med Dox, LLC d/b/a TeleMedDox, Inc. and Doctors Telehealth Network, Inc. |
| 4:2007cv01798 |
| May 31, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Harris |
| Lee H Rosenthal |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
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
173
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered: Simultaneous and simultaneously are construed to mean at the same time. No later than August 31, 2015, the parties must inform the court whether they agree to mediation and, if so, the anticipated timeline for mediating this dispute. The parties must also indicate whether they intend to file summary-judgment motions and, if so, propose a timeline for doing so. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
|
|
Filing
146
ORDER entered DENYING 144 Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration of 131 Memorandum and Opinion, 140 Memorandum and Order. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
140
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered DENYING 134 Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration of 131 Memorandum and Opinion, GRANTING 136 MOTION to Stay this Case Pending Reexamination of the Patent-In-Suit. This case is administratively closed pending resolution of the reexamination of the 288 Patent. The parties must submit a joint status report in writing every 60 days. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
131
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered DENYING 98 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER entered: This is a patent-infringement suit between Emtel, Inc. and Specialists On Call, Inc. (SOC). The court previously ordered the parties to submit any discovery on claim-construction issues by November 22, 2011. (Docket Entry No. 75). In light of that deadline, SOC has moved to stay all deadlines in this case pending resolution of its recently filed motion for summary judgment, (Docket Entry No. 98). Emtel must respond to SOCs motion to stay, (Docket Entry No. 100), by November 4, 2011.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER entered GRANTING 54 Second MOTION for Extension of Time Invalidity Contentions. This case is stayed and administratively closed pending the PTOs decision. Any party may move to reopen and reinstate this case to the active docket by motion filed no more than 30 days after the PTO issues its decision.STAYED flag set. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered DENYING 26 MOTION for Sanctions, GRANTING 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, DENYING 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Judgment on the Pleadings, DENYING 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER entered GRANTING 51 Corrected MOTION for Extension of Time Local Rule 3-3 and 3-4 Filings, Time to Amend Pleadings adding Inequitable Conduct, other scheduling order benchmarks, DENYING 44 MOTION to Stay [EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED] MOTION to Stay [EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED]. All deadlines are extended by 60 days.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
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 Texas 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.
