US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Intellectual Property Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 307
BUCKINGHAM MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. BASHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2021cv01390
Plaintiff:
BUCKINGHAM MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
Defendant:
BASHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
DALE v. SAFOCO, INC.
as 1:2021cv00238
Plaintiff:
CLAYTON DALE
Defendant:
SAFOCO, INC.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145
STEWART v. BOEING CORPORATION
as 2:2021cv00938
Plaintiff:
CHARLES STEWART
Defendant:
BOEING CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126
SONICBLUE AEROSPACE, INC. v. ROLLS-ROYCE HOLDINGS PLC et al
as 3:2021cv00122
Plaintiff:
SONICBLUE AEROSPACE, INC.
Defendant:
ROLLS-ROYCE HOLDINGS PLC, ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION, ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
ZPE LICENSING INC. v. SNYDER PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING, INC. et al
as 2:2021cv00591
Defendant:
SNYDER PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING, INC. doing business as SPE MOTORSPORTS, DAN SNYDER and SCOTT SNYDER
Plaintiff:
ZPE LICENSING INC.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
BOUND2B B.V. v. XOLUTION, GMBH
as 2:2021cv00476
Defendant:
XOLUTION, GMBH
Plaintiff:
BOUND2B B.V.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
FUGAZZI v. CAROTHERS
as 2:2021cv00277
Defendant:
ATTORNEY FLOYDE B. CAROTHERS
Plaintiff:
JOAN C. FUGAZZI
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
EYENAVISION, INC. v. ENCHROMA, INC.
as 2:2021cv00246
Defendant:
ENCHROMA, INC.
Plaintiff:
EYENAVISION, INC.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145
THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. et al v. KIOBA PROCESSING LLC
as 2:2020cv01884
Plaintiff:
PNC BANK, N.A. and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
Defendant:
KIOBA PROCESSING LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
PNC BANK, N.A. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
as 2:2020cv01886
Plaintiff:
PNC BANK, N.A.
Defendant:
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
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.
