XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC
Plaintiff: XY, LLC and Beckman Coulter, Inc.
Defendant: Trans Ova Genetics, LC
Case Number: 1:2017cv00944
Filed: April 18, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: William J. Martinez
Presiding Judge: Nina Y. Wang
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338
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
January 23, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 647 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Trans Ova's Motion to Supplement (ECF No. 542 ) is DENIED. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/23/2024.(jrobe, )
September 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 533 ORDER Adopting July 13, 2022 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Over Defendant's Objection. The Recommendation 529 is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Defendant's Objection 530 is OVERRULED. The Renewed Motion to Dismiss Count VI 439 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Motion to File Second Answer 446 is GRANTED, and Trans Ova shall file their amended pleading by no later than October 3, 2022. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 9/19/2022.(trvo, )
July 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 529 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 07/13/2022. This court respectfully RECOMMENDS that: Defendant Trans Ova Genetics, LC's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiffs' Operative Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) 439 be DENIED without prejudice; Trans Ova's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint 446 be GRANTED. (alave, )
May 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 523 ORDER. Defendant's Objections (ECF Nos. 350 & [495-1]) are OVERRULED. Judge Wang's October 2, 2018 Recommendation (ECF No. 341 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Judge Wang's November 29, 2021 Recommendation (ECF No. 490 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude New Invalidity Arguments Under D.C.COLO.LPtR 16(b)(5) (ECF No. 170 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein. Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (ECF No. 84 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein. Defendant is DIRECTED to file its Amended Final Invalidity Contentions on or before June 3, 2022. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 5/20/2022.(trvo, )
December 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 492 ORDER Overruling Plaintiffs' Objections and Adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Objections (ECF No. 371 ) are OVERRULED. The Recommendation (ECF No. 363 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Substitute Stipulation (ECF No. 315 ) is DENIED. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/8/2021.(trvo, )
November 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 490 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 11/29/2021. For the reasons set forth herein, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that: Defendant Trans Ova Genetics, LC's Motion to Supplement Preliminary Inv alidity Contentions be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude New Invalidity Arguments Under D.C.COLO.LPtR 16(b)(5) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to the '559 Patent; and To the extent the presiding judge, the Honorable William J. Martinez, finds that any of the invalidity arguments should be stricken, Trans Ova be ORDERED to file Amended Final Invalidity Contentions no later than fourteen (14) days after Judge Martinez's Order. (alave, )
August 9, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 262 ORDER Granting 138 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Denying 137 Motion to Amend Complaint, and Denying as Moot 259 Motion to Amend Counterclaims, by Judge William J. Martinez on 08/09/2018. (wjmlc1)
January 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 120 ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 31 Trans Ova's Motion to Dismiss. XY's Motion for Leave to file a Surreply to Trans Ova's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 43 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 1/11/2018. (angar, )
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: XY, LLC
Represented By: Daniel Lynn Moffett
Represented By: Kirt Stephen O'Neill
Represented By: George Andrew Lever Rosbrook
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: Beckman Coulter, Inc.
Represented By: Brian Joseph Ankenbrandt
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 ]
Defendant: Trans Ova Genetics, LC
Represented By: Donald E. Lake, III
Represented By: George G. Matava
Represented By: Samantha K. Picans
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?