Cornucopia Products LLC v. Dyson Incorporated et al
| Cornucopia Products LLC |
| Dyson Incorporated and Dyson Limited |
| 2:2012cv00234 |
| February 2, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Neil V Wake |
| Antitrust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2 |
| 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
70
ORDER that Cornucopia's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 61 ) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Cornucopia's request to file its proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 67 ) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Counts I, II, and III are dismissed with prejudice to the extent they assert a Walker Process antitrust theory based on Dyson's conduct in obtaining U.S. Patent No. 8,052,379. FURTHER ORDERED that Dyson Defendants' alternative Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12( b)(6) and to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f) (Doc. 63 ) is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Cornucopia may file an amended complaint adding Dyson Technologies, Ltd., as a Defendant and the additional allegations regarding Dyson Technologies, Ltd., included in paragraph 2 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint, by September 21, 2012. See order for complete details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 9/18/12. (NKS)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER granting 33 Dyson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, conditioned upon Dyson posting a bond in the amount of $500,000.00. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 7/27/12.(TLJ)
|
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 Arizona 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.
