Seiko Epson Corporation v. Optoma Technology, Inc.

Case Number: 3:2006cv06946
Filed: November 6, 2006
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
Presiding Judge: Martin J. Jenkins
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
January 5, 2011 421 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant/counter-claimant CORETRONIC CORPORATION and OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC.s' motions for summary judgment to invalidate claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the '392 patent and to invalidate claims 1, 2 and 5 of the '158 patent are GRANTED and the action of plaintiff/counter-defendant SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION is DISMISSED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff/counter-defendant SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION's motion for summary judgment to invalidate claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 and 11 of the '899 patent is GRANTED and the counterclaim of CORETRONIC CORPORATION and OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC. for infringement of the '899 patent is DISMISSED in its entirety.. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/5/2011. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011)
November 23, 2010 414 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel: Defendants' motion to invalidate claims 1, 2 and 5 of the 158 patent is GRANTED on the basis of obviousness (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2010)
October 19, 2010 403 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time to 10/25/2010 for plaintiff to file responsive pleading; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/18/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2010)
May 26, 2009 374 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING defendants' Motion for Leave to File Reconsideration Motion; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 5/22/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2009)
May 15, 2009 373 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel: Defendants/counter-claimants' motion to invalidate claims 1 and 2 of the '158 patent is GRANTED on the basis of anticipation. Defendants/counter-claimants' motion to invalidate claim 5 of the 158 p atent is GRANTED on the basis of obviousness. Defendants/counter-claimants motion to invalidate claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the 392 patent is GRANTED on the basis of obviousness. Plaintiff/counter-defendants motion to invalidate claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 and 11 of the 899 patent is GRANTED on the basis of obviousness. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2009)
December 23, 2008 330 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING 240 250 MOTION HEARING TO 1/22/2009 AT 2:00 p.m; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/9/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2008)
December 10, 2008 329 Opinion or Order of the Court *** FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOC 330 *** STIPULATION AND ORDER re 240 250 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing reset for 1/22/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/9/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) Modified on 12/23/2008 (awb, COURT-STAFF).
September 29, 2008 256 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing claims related to US Patent NO. 6,558,004; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/29/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008)
September 4, 2008 237 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 227 plaintiff's request to seal report on discovery dispute, Exhs A, E; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/3/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2008)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Seiko Epson Corporation v. Optoma Technology, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ 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?