Google, Inc. et al v. Microsoft Corporation Featured Case

Plaintiffs Google Inc. and Kai-Fu Lee sought judicial relief from a non-compete provision drafted by Dr. Lee\'s former employer, Microsoft Corporation.

Plaintiff: Kai-Fu Lee and Google, Inc.
Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: 5:2005cv03095
Filed: July 29, 2005
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Jose Office
County: Santa Clara
Referring Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Presiding Judge: Ronald M. Whyte
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
December 27, 2005 34
STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Google, Inc., Kai-Fu Lee. (Taylor, Stephen) (Filed on 12/27/2005)
October 27, 2005 33 Opinion or Order of the Court
ORDER by Judge Whyte deferring ruling on 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 22 Motion to Stay (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2005)
October 14, 2005 32
Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2005 before Ronald M. Whyte (Date Filed: 10/14/2005) re 22 MOTION to Dismiss Transfer or Stay filed by Microsoft Corporation,, 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Google, Inc.,, Kai-Fu Lee,. (Court Reporter Christine Bedard.) (jg, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2005)
August 29, 2005 20
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Google, Inc., Kai-Fu Lee. (Taylor, Stephen) (Filed on 8/29/2005)
August 26, 2005 19
Proposed Order re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Google, Inc., Kai-Fu Lee. (Taylor, Stephen) (Filed on 8/26/2005)
August 24, 2005 14 Opinion or Order of the Court
ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (jg, Court Staff) (Filed on 8/24/2005)
August 15, 2005 12
RESPONSE to Microsoft Corporation's Notice of Pendency of Other Action (Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-13) by Google, Inc., Kai-Fu Lee. (Taylor, Stephen) (Filed on 8/15/2005)
August 11, 2005 11
ANSWER to Complaint byMicrosoft Corporation. (Bettinger, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005)
August 2, 2005 8 Opinion or Order of the Court
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Ronald M. Whyte for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remains as the referral judge. Signed by Executive Committee on August 2, 2005. (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2005)
August 1, 2005 4
Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Google, Inc., Kai-Fu Lee and Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge. (Taylor, Stephen) (Filed on 8/1/2005)

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: Google, Inc. et al v. Microsoft Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kai-Fu Lee
Represented By: Jan Joseph Klohonatz
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Google, Inc.
Represented By: Jan Joseph Klohonatz
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
Represented By: Rachel R. Davidson
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 [ 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?