Vaporstream Inc v. Snap Inc
| Vaporstream Inc |
| Snap Inc |
| 2:2017cv00220 |
| January 10, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John A. Kronstadt |
| Karen L. Stevenson |
| Patent |
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
300
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Doc. No. 247 ); AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Doc. No. 238 , 240 , 244 , 245 , 246 ); AND (3) GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION REGARDING THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL REGARDING VAPORSTREAM PRODUCTS (Doc. No. 283 ) by Judge Marilyn L. Huff. (sy)
|
|
Filing
224
ORDER by Judge Marilyn L. Huff: (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S FEBRUARY 27, 2018 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (Doc. No. 183 ); (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT (Doc. No. 178 ; AND (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON IPR ESTOPPEL (Doc. No. 179 .) (sy)
|
|
Filing
189
ORDER by Judge Marilyn L. Huff: Order Denying Joint Motion to Stay Without Prejudice. (Doc. No. 187 .) (sy)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Marilyn L. Huff. On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff also filed an application to file the joint summary of a discovery Defendant was required to file a declaration in support of the motion to seal along with an y redactions within 4 days of the filing of the motion to seal. To date, Defendant has not filed any such declaration or redactions. As a result, the Court orders Defendant tls. o show cause within 4 days from dispute under seal. the date this order is filed why the Plaintiffs motion to seal, (Doc. No. 142), should not be denied. See order for detai (shb)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 74 by Judge Marilyn L. Huff. In sum, Snap has failed to show at the summary judgment stage that the patents-in-suit are invalid under § 101 as a matter of law. As a result, the Court denies Snap's motion for summary judgment. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
76
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson re Stipulation for Protective Order 73 (See Order for details) (rh)
|
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: Vaporstream Inc v. Snap Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Snap Inc | |
| Represented By: | Reuben H Chen |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Vaporstream Inc | |
| Represented By: | Davida P Brook |
| Represented By: | Joseph S Grinstein |
| Represented By: | Robert Rivera, Jr |
| Represented By: | Meng Xi |
| 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.
