Orica Explosives Technology, Pty., Ltd. v. Austin Powder Company
| Orica Explosives Technology, Pty., Ltd. |
| Austin Powder Company |
| 2:2007cv03337 |
| May 22, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| XX US, Outside California |
| A Howard Matz |
| Carolyn Turchin |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| 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
252
ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge A. Howard Matz: Before the Court is the parties Joint Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 251 signed by counsel on behalf of all parties who have appeared in the action. Good cause ap pearing therefore, pursuant to Rule 41, Fed. R. Civ. P., that this action, including complaint, answers and counterclaims, is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorney's fees, costs and expenses. (Made JS-6, Case Terminated.) (jp)
|
|
Filing
228
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Infringement that defendants' Products Include Every Element of U.S. Patent No. 6,644,202 128 and GRANTS Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as to Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,644,202 134 . This Order is not intended for publication or for inclusion in the databases of Westlaw or LEXIS. (jp)
|
|
Filing
199
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz. Counsel representing the defendants are ORDERED to inform the Court in writing on or before February 13, 2009 whether or not Defendants current counsel will continue to represent Austin Powder Company, Dan- Mar Company and Lectronics LLC. If current counsel will not continue to appear, new counsel must enter an appearance by February 13, 2009. (kbr)
|
|
Filing
196
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS before Judge A. Howard Matz: On 12/22/2008, counsel for Defendant filed a Notice of Automatic Stay stating that SDI has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy 22 and that the instant litigation is therefore STAYED. The Court ORDERS Brown White & Newhouse LLP, and Wiley Rein LLP, the two firms representing SDI, to set forth in greater detail their positions on these issues and their proposal for how this case should proceed given the stay. The firms must set forth their proposal on or before 1/20/2009. The other parties in this case may then respond in writing to the proposal on or before 1/23/2009. (jp)
|
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 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
| Search for this case: Orica Explosives Technology, Pty., Ltd. v. Austin Powder Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Orica Explosives Technology, Pty., Ltd. | |
| Represented By: | Michael R Weiner |
| 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: Austin Powder Company | |
| Represented By: | Douglas Ray McSwane |
| 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.
