Henry Chung v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC et al
Henry Chung |
Does, Christian Rado and Vaporous Technologies, LLC |
2:2016cv08586 |
November 17, 2016 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Paul L. Abrams |
Ronald S.W. Lew |
Patent |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 84 ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: DENYING 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (shb) |
Filing 68 JUDGMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Accused Products alleged by Plaintiff inthis Action to infringe the 812 Patent do not literally or equivalently infringe the 812 Patent; and Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff shall take nothing. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (shb) |
Filing 61 ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: re Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss 49 ; Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 47 . The Court DENIESPlaintiffs Motion and GRANTS Defendants Motion. Because the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Def endants as to non-infringement of the 812Patent, the only claim that remains is Defendants invalidity counterclaim. Defendants may either continue to pursue this counterclaim or voluntarilydismiss it and move forward with a motion for attorneys fees. See order for details. (shb) |
Filing 46 ORDER re: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERM by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court CONSTRUES the term "water chamber" in the '812 Patent as a chamber for holding water, not other liquids. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre) |
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
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.