Seiko Epson Corporation, a Japan corporation et al v. Prinko Image Co. USA, Inc.
Plaintiff: Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc. and Seiko Epson Corporation
Defendant: Prinko Image Co. USA, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2017cv04501
Filed: June 16, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Andre Birotte
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Chooljian
Nature of Suit: Other

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 41 FINAL JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AGAINST DEFENDANT PRINKO IMAGE CO. (USA), INC. by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS HEREBY FOUND, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant Prinko Image Co. (USA), Inc. and its officers and directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, distributors, and affiliates, who are in active concert or participation with, through, or under them and who receive actual notice of this judgment by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjo ined from the sale of the Accused Products, etc. This Judgment shall finally conclude and dispose of all claims and counterclaims of Plaintiffs against Defendant and Defendant against Plaintiffs with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. See document for further details. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (gk)
July 20, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 18 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before August 3, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for l ack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. (iv)
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Seiko Epson Corporation, a Japan corporation et al v. Prinko Image Co. USA, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Epson Portland Inc.
Represented By: Richard H Doss
Represented By: Tigran Guledjian
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: Epson America, Inc.
Represented By: Richard H Doss
Represented By: Tigran Guledjian
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: Seiko Epson Corporation
Represented By: Richard H Doss
Represented By: Tigran Guledjian
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: Prinko Image Co. USA, Inc.
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?