PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al v. Optimizely, Inc.
| Level 3 Communication, LLC and PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC |
| Optimizely, Inc. |
| 5:2018cv06614 |
| October 30, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Beth Labson Freeman |
| Susan van Keulen |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 7, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
RELATED CASE ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/6/2018. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2018)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman for all further proceedings pursuant to Order Relating Cases. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen remains as referral judge assigned to case. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2018)
|
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, Level 3 Communication, LLC. Optimizely, Inc. served on 11/1/2018, answer due 11/23/2018. (Sherman, Michael) (Filed on 11/2/2018) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Optimizely, Inc.. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2018) |
| Filing 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/22/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2019 09:30 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2018) |
| Filing 5 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. 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 11/13/2018. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2018) |
| Filing 4 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding Patent Infringement (cc: form mailed to register). (Sherman, Michael) (Filed on 10/30/2018) |
| Filing 3 Certificate of Interested Entities by Level 3 Communication, LLC, PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Level 3 Financing, Inc., Other Affiliate CenturyLink, Inc. for Level 3 Communication, LLC; Other Affiliate Kinetech, Inc., Other Affiliate Eurocapital Business Development, LLC, Other Affiliate PersonalWeb, Inc., Other Affiliate Topodia Limited, Other Affiliate Sam Venture Partners for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC. (Sherman, Michael) (Filed on 10/30/2018) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons. (Sherman, Michael) (Filed on 10/30/2018) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Optimizely, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-12807933.). Filed byPersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, Level 3 Communication, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sherman, Michael) (Filed on 10/30/2018) |
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 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.
