Berman v. Opentv Corp et al
| John Berman |
| Opentv Corp, Liberty Media Corporation and Wink Communications, Inc. |
| 3:2009cv04065 |
| September 2, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| San Mateo |
| James Larson |
| None |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| None |
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
80
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND; GRANTING PLAINTIFFS ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR JURISDICTION DETERMINATION AND REMAND; DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 10/12/2010. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2010)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 8, 2010 HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND; PLAINTIFFS ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR JURISDICTION DETERMINATION AND REMAND; DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Having read and consid ered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, and vacates the hearings scheduled for October 8, 2010. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2010)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER GRANTING NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON OPENTV CORP.'S, LIBERTY MEDIA CORP.'S, AND WINK COMMUNICATIONS INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The parties' stipulation to continue the hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment to October 8, 2010 is granted. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 26, 2010. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2010)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 1, 2010. Admitting Melissa Armstrong on a pro hac vice basis, representing defendant OpenTV Corp. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2010)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER ON RENEWED STIPULATION TO CHANGE TRIAL DATE. The trial is continued from April 18, 2011 to September 6, 2011, and the Pretrial Conference is continued from April 5, 2011 to August 16, 2011. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 15, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2010)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATION TO CHANGE TRIAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 16, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2010)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 4, 2010. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2010)
|
|
Filing
35
PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 2/2/2010. (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2010)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 29, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2010)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO SERVE DEFENDANT WINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Plaintiff is directed to serve Wink Communications no later than January 22, 2010, and to file, no later than January 28, 2010, proof of such service. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 4, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2010)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER SELECTINH ADR PROCESS re 17 Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR filed by Opentv Corp, Liberty Media Corporation. Signed by Judge James Larson on 11/20/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009)
|
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
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.
