Bayer CropScience AG et al v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
Plaintiff: Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer SAS
Defendant: Dow Agrosciences LLC
Case Number: 1:2012cv00256
Filed: March 2, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Delaware
Office: Wilmington Office
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Richard G. Andrews
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271
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
March 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 394 OPINION re 317 , 374 , and 384 ; please also see Order entered 3/13/15. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/13/15. (bkb)
January 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 384 AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 317 MOTION for Attorney Fees; AMENDS 374 Report & Recommendations; Please see document(s) for further details. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) , briefing consists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 1/22/2015 as set forth in Amended R&R. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 1/5/2015. (bkb)
December 22, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 374 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS RECOMMENDED that Dow's Motion 317 for Fees and Costs as Prevailing Party be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Recommended that Dow's Motion be granted to the extent it asks the Court to find that this is an "exceptional case" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285. It is also recommended that Dow be awarded a substantial sum in attorney's fees. It is only recommended that Dow's motion be denied to the extent the motion asks for the reimbursement of the fees Dow incurred before June 29, 2012, and to the extend Dow seeks reimbursement of costs. The Court recommends that Dow be permitted to update its clamed fees if this Report and Recommendation is adopted. Objections to R&R due by 1/8/2015. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 12/22/2014. (gvw)
October 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 268 OPINION re 126 . Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/7/2013. (bkb)
December 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OPINION re 8 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/6/2012. (nms)
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 Delaware District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bayer CropScience AG et al v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bayer CropScience AG
Represented By: Frederick L. Cottrell, III
Represented By: Anne Shea Gaza
Represented By: Jeffrey L. Moyer
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: Bayer SAS
Represented By: Frederick L. Cottrell, III
Represented By: Anne Shea Gaza
Represented By: Jeffrey L. Moyer
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: Dow Agrosciences LLC
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?