Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Rachio, Inc.
Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
Defendant: Rachio, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2021cv03300
Filed: December 9, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Presiding Judge: N Reid Neureiter
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 31, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 Minute ORDER by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on 31 January 2022. It is hereby ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Scheduling/Planning Conference (Dkt. #15 ) is DENIED. As stated in the January 26, 2022 Minute Order (Dkt. #14 ), the parties are free to settle at any time and, absent the filing of a notice of settlement, the Court will continue with the administration of this case. PLEASE READ ATTACHED MINUTE ORDER.(cmadr, )
January 28, 2022 Filing 15 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Scheduling/Planning Conference by Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rabicoff, Isaac)
January 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 Minute ORDER by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on 3 January 2022. Finding good cause, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #11 ) is GRANTED. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before March 4, 2022. The parties are advised that, absent a notice of settlement, the Court is disinclined to grant further extensions of the answer deadline or continue the Scheduling Conference set on March 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. The parties are free to settle at any time, but the Court must continue with the administration of this case. PLEASE READ ATTACHED MINUTE ORDER. (cmadr, )
January 25, 2022 Filing 13 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re #1 Complaint, by Defendant Rachio, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory)
January 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 12 Minute ORDER by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on 3 January 2022. Finding good cause, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #11 ) is GRANTED. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before February 2, 2022. PLEASE READ ATTACHED MINUTE ORDER. (cmadr, )
December 31, 2021 Filing 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re #1 Complaint, by Defendant Rachio, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory)
December 10, 2021 Filing 10 Report re Patent/Trademark: Report on the filing of an action emailed (NEF) to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Entry for ECF #9 . (cmadr, ) Modified to add document on 12/22/2021 (cmadr, ).
December 10, 2021 Filing 9 NOTICE re #1 Complaint, Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) by Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Rabicoff, Isaac)
December 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING OF CONSENT/NON-CONSENT FORM by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on 9 December 2021. Consent Form due by 2/24/2022. Proposed Scheduling Order due 3/3/2022. Scheduling Conference set for 3/10/2022 10:30 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter. The Scheduling Conference will be conducted via telephone. The parties are directed to call the conference line as a participant at (888) 398-2342, Access Code 5755390# at the scheduled time. (cmadr, )
December 9, 2021 Filing 7 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (cpomm, )
December 9, 2021 Filing 6 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter. Text Only Entry (cpomm, )
December 9, 2021 Filing 5 Administrative Notice: Notice to filer of non-compliance with Patent, Trademark, or Copyright Action case opening procedures. It is the responsibility of the attorney or pro se party commencing the action to follow Local Rule D.C.COLO.LCivR 3.1. Please file a properly completed Report form, which can be found on the courts website. (Text Only Entry) (cpomm, )
December 9, 2021 Filing 4 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Rachio, Inc. by Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. (Rabicoff, Isaac)
December 9, 2021 Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Rabicoff, Isaac)
December 9, 2021 Filing 2 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Isaac Philip Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Rabicoff, Isaac)
December 9, 2021 Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Rachio, Inc. (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number ACODC-8216142)Attorney Isaac Philip Rabicoff added to party Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.(pty:pla), filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rabicoff, Isaac)

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: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Rachio, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
Represented By: Isaac Philip Rabicoff
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: Rachio, Inc.
Represented By: Gregory Scot Tamkin
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?