Seiko Epson Corporation v. Optoma Technology, Inc.
| 3:2006cv06946 |
| November 6, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Martin J. Jenkins |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
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
421
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)
|
|
Filing
414
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)
|
|
Filing
403
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)
|
|
Filing
374
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)
|
|
Filing
373
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)
|
|
Filing
330
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)
|
|
Filing
329
*** 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).
|
|
Filing
256
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)
|
|
Filing
237
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)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| 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 | [ Unicourt | 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.
