IpVenture Inc v. ProStar Computer Inc, et al
| IpVenture Inc |
| Midern Computer Inc and ProStar Computer Inc |
| Attorney Settlement Officer Coordinator, Lourdes G Baird and Rudolph Y Kim |
| 2:2003cv05780 |
| October 21, 2008 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Dale S. Fischer |
| Carolyn Turchin |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 Patent Infringement |
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
232
CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Dale S. Fischer: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter ofthis action; 2. On August 14, 2003, IpVenture filed a Complaint for Pat entInfringement against ProStar and Midern; 3. All claims United States Patent No. 6,216,235 are valid and enforceable; 4. ProStar and Midern infringe United States Patent No. 6,216,235 with respect to at least the ProStar and Sager 3xxx, 4xxx, 5xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx series notebook computers, their successor models, and all other ProStar or Midern products that are not more than colorably different with respect to matters relevant to the '235 patent;5. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted, or for which leave toamend was requested, by each party against the other in this action are herebydismissed with prejudice; 6. Each party shall bear its own attorneys fees and costs. (rrey)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central 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.
