Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: Cary A Jardin
Defendant: Datallegro, Inc. and Stuart O Frost
Case Number: 3:2008cv01462
Filed: August 12, 2008
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: Patent Office
County: San Diego
Referring Judge: Ruben B. Brooks
Presiding Judge: Irma E. Gonzalez
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 35:145 Patent Infringement

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
October 12, 2011 245 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 239 Motion to Stay, Deny, or Re-Tax Clerk's Taxation of Costs. Motion to deny all costs is denied. Motion to re-tax the costs awarded by Clerk is denied. Motion to stay execution of j udgment pending appeal is granted, but only on condition that Pla post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $134,174.83 no later than 14 days from the filing of this Order. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 10/12/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
October 4, 2010 124 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Regarding Claim Construction of U.S. Patent 7,177,874. Claim Construction hearing was held on 9/16/2010. Court adopts the constructions set forth in this Order for the disputed terms of the '874 Patent. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 10/4/2010.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jah)
February 20, 2009 57 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Plaintiff's 37 Motion to Stay Proceedings Based on Pending Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit. Granting 56 Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings. Dfts may serve up to eight third party subpoenas for the limited purpose of ensurin g that the third parties to produce requested documents pending the stay. All other litigation activities, deadlines or obligations under FRCP or Local Rules, with exception to the limited subpoenas, are stayed pending the conclusion of the reexamination proceeding in US Patent and Trademark Office. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 2/20/2009. (jah) (jrl).
January 20, 2009 42 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Defendants' 34 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 1/18/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah)
September 3, 2008 21 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Plaintiff's 4 Motion for an injunction to preserve evidence. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 9/3/2008. Court refers the parties to Magistrate Judge Brooks for any disputes regarding the scope of discovery. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service). (jah)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cary A Jardin
Represented By: Randall J Baron
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: Datallegro, Inc.
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: Stuart O Frost
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?