Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. et al
| Finjan, Inc. |
| Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. and Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. |
| 5:2018cv02621 |
| May 3, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Santa Clara |
| William H. Orrick |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 |
| Plaintiff |
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
269
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/28/2020. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2020)
|
|
Filing
267
ORDER DENYING 263 MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER ENTERED AT DKT. NO. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2020)
|
|
Filing
227
ORDER granting 218 STIPULATION re 213 MOTION to Strike. Deadlines reset as to 213 MOTION to Strike. Responses due by 11/5/2019. Replies due by 11/13/2019. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/5/2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2019)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER GRANTING 78 ] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Judge William H. Orrick. Check Point is required to E-FILE the amended document. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2019)
|
|
Filing
101
Order on Discovery Disputes. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 3/27/19. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER GRANTING 55 MOTION TO STRIKE IN PART; GRANTING 54 , 60 , 69 , 75 MOTIONS TO SEAL; GRANTING 58 MOTION TO AMEND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2019)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER GRANTING 49 MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN PART AND DENYING IN PART by Judge William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion to Strike. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2019)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER granting 63 Stipulation to extend deadlines re: 55 Motion to Enforce Court Order and Strike Infringement Contentions. Reply due by 1/31/2019. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/23/2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2019)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DEADLINES - Reset Deadlines as to 49 MOTION to Strike. Response due by 12/28/2018. Reply due by 1/8/2019. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/18/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2018)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER ON 32 MOTION TO IMPUTE SERVICE by Judge William H. Orrick. Plaintiff's motion to impute service to Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. is GRANTED. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2018)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER TO CHANGE DATE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.'S 32 MOTION TO IMPUTE SERVICE granting 41 STIPULATION. Motion Hearing reset for 11/28/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/14/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2018)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER granting 34 STIPULATION to extend deadlines re 32 MOTION to Impute Service. Response due by 11/2/2018. Reply due by 11/6/2018. Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Motion to Impute Service on Defendant Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/26/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2018)
|
|
Filing
25
CIVIL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 8/15/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2018)
|
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.
