Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. America
Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
Defendant: AU Optronics Corp. America
Case Number: 4:2020cv06769
Filed: September 29, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: Donna M Ryu
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 15, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 15, 2020 Filing 9 REPORT on the determination of an action regarding patent infringement (cc: form mailed to register). (Attachments: #1 Dismissal)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2020)
October 14, 2020 Filing 8 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. (Glenn, Michael) (Filed on 10/14/2020)
October 1, 2020 Filing 7 REPORT on the filing of an action regarding Patent (cc: form mailed to register). (Attachments: #1 Complaint)(cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2020)
October 1, 2020 Filing 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 12/23/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/30/2020 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2020)
October 1, 2020 Filing 5 Summons Issued as to AU Optronics Corp. America. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2020)
September 30, 2020 Filing 4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 10/14/2020. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2020)
September 29, 2020 Filing 3 Proposed Summons. (Glenn, Michael) (Filed on 9/29/2020)
September 29, 2020 Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. . (Glenn, Michael) (Filed on 9/29/2020)
September 29, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT (with jury demand) for Infringement of the '805 Patent against AU Optronics Corp. America (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0971-15000144). Filed by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Patent, #2 Exhibit Claim)(Glenn, Michael) (Filed on 9/29/2020) Modified on 10/1/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF).

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: Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. America
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: AU Optronics Corp. America
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: Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
Represented By: Michael Joseph Glenn
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?