1-800 Contacts v. DITTO Technologies
Plaintiff: 1-800 Contacts
Defendant: DITTO Technologies
Case Number: 2:2013cv00145
Filed: February 26, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Utah
Office: Central Office
County: Salt Lake
Presiding Judge: Paul M. Warner
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 0271 Patent Infringement
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
June 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 28 MEMORANDUM DECISION finding as moot 18 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 21 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 06/20/2013. (asp)
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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: 1-800 Contacts v. DITTO Technologies
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: 1-800 Contacts
Represented By: Bryan G. Pratt
Represented By: Mark A. Miller
Represented By: Christopher B. Hadley
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 ]
Defendant: DITTO Technologies
Represented By: Jess M. Krannich
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?