Gabriel Technologies et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al
| Gabriel Technologies Corporation and Trace Technologies, LLC |
| Qualcomm Incorporated, Snaptrack, Inc. and Norman Krasner |
| 3:2008cv01992 |
| October 24, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Patent Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Roger T. Benitez |
| Louisa S Porter |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1338 Patent Infringement |
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
371
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 332 Motion for Attorney Fees as to Plaintiffs and Non-Party Wang, Hartman, Gibbs & Cauley, PLC. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to pay the $800,000 in funds and any accrued int erest held in the Courts registry to Defendants when this order becomes final; Plaintiffs will pay $11,601,014.51 to Defendants within 60 days of this order; and WHGC will pay $64,316.50 to Defendants within 60 days of this order. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 2/1/13. (cge)
|
|
Filing
328
AMENDED ORDER granting 323 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment; Motions to File Documents Under Seal [Doc. No. 290 ; 303 and 317 ]; and Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion to Supplement the Record [Doc. No. 320 ]; and denying as moot 294 defendant s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and; Motion to File Documents under Seal [Doc. No. 291 and 299 ]; and denying 301 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. IT IS SO ORDERED For the reasons set forth above, Defendants Qualcomm, In c., SnapTrack, Inc., and Norman Krasners motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 323 ) is GRANTED. Defendants motion to exclude expert testimony (Doc. No. 294 ) is DENIED and is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs motion to exclude expert testimony, (Doc. No. 301 ), is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/1/2012.(yeb)
|
|
Filing
322
ORDER Granting 290 303 317 Motions to File Documents Under Seal; Denying 291 299 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 9/28/2012. (rlu)
|
|
Filing
287
ORDER on 266 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute - Damages Discovery. Defendants' objection to providing any damages discovery as requested by Plaintiffs is overruled. Discovery must be provided as provided in the attached Order. The Court will rule on specific objections as are raised that survive a meet and confer and are submitted in a joint motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 8/2/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
252
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 188 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 249 Ex Parte Application to Supplement the Record; granting [188-54] Request for Judicial Notice. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 3/13/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
|
|
Filing
229
ORDER denying 170 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/12/11. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
110
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 81 Motion for Bond. Plaintiffs' shall post a bond in the amount of $800,000 w/in 90 days of entry of this Order. If Plaintiffs are unable to post the required security w/in this time, their action may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/20/2010. (cc: Financial) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jah)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 72 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's April 23rd Order And/Or Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. For the reason stated herein, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and gra nts Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the scheduling order. The Clerk of Court is ordered to docket Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, which was filed with their motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 72-2). Defen dants shall have 10 days from the date Plaintiffs' motion is docketed, to file a brief in opposition, not to exceed 25 pages. Plaintiffs shall have 7 days to file a reply brief, not to exceed 10 pages. No oral argument will be held. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/6/2010. (leh)
|
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 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.
