OptoLum Incorporated v. Cree Incorporated

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona District Court OptoLum Incorporated v. Cree Incorporated

OptoLum Incorporated v. Cree Incorporated

Plaintiff:	OptoLum Incorporated
Defendant:	Cree Incorporated
Case Number:	2:2016cv03828
Filed:	November 3, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
County:	Maricopa
Presiding Judge:	Douglas L Rayes
Nature of Suit:	Patent
Cause of Action:	35 U.S.C. § 271
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
July 24, 2017	Filing 90 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Amend/Correct. Cree shall file its amended answer within 14 days from the date of this order. Granting 81 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged surreply (Doc. 82 ). Cree's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue (Doc. 73 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/24/17.(DXD)
March 21, 2017	Filing 49 ORDER - Defendant Cree, Inc.'s 22 motion to transfer venue is DENIED and its 24 motion to dismiss counts one and two is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff OptoLum Inc.'s 34 motion to seal its response brief and 43 motion to seal its motion to strike or seal are GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to file under seal the lodged response (Doc. 35 ) and motion (Doc. 44 ). FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff OptoLum's 48 motion to strike or seal Cree's 42 reply brief is DENIED. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 03/21/2017. (ATD)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 24, 2017

Filing 90 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Amend/Correct. Cree shall file its amended answer within 14 days from the date of this order. Granting 81 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged surreply (Doc. 82 ). Cree's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue (Doc. 73 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/24/17.(DXD)

March 21, 2017

Filing 49 ORDER - Defendant Cree, Inc.'s 22 motion to transfer venue is DENIED and its 24 motion to dismiss counts one and two is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff OptoLum Inc.'s 34 motion to seal its response brief and 43 motion to seal its motion to strike or seal are GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to file under seal the lodged response (Doc. 35 ) and motion (Doc. 44 ). FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff OptoLum's 48 motion to strike or seal Cree's 42 reply brief is DENIED. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 03/21/2017. (ATD)

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: OptoLum Incorporated v. Cree Incorporated
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: OptoLum Incorporated
Represented By:	Robert Alan Brooks
Represented By:	Leah R McCoy
Represented By:	Mead Misic
Represented By:	Jason Clarence Williams
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: Cree Incorporated
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?