McRo Inc. v. 2K Games Inc.

McRo Inc. v. 2K Games Inc.

Plaintiff:	McRo Inc.
Defendant:	2K Games Inc.
Case Number:	1:2012cv01519
Filed:	November 21, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the District of Delaware
Office:	Wilmington Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Leonard P. Stark
Nature of Suit:	Patent
Cause of Action:	35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 19, 2014	Filing 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART (17 in 1:12-cv-01513-LPS-CJB) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (The Amended Complaint) filed by Rockstar Games Inc., and (18 in 1:12-cv-01517-LPS-CJB) MOTION t o Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (The Second Amended Complaint) filed by Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and (17 in 1:12-cv-01519-LPS-CJB) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (The Second Amended Complaint) filed by 2K Games Inc. P lease 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 bri efing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 4/3/2014. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/17/2014. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-01513-LPS-CJB, 1:12-cv-01517-LPS-CJB, 1:12-cv-01519-LPS-CJB(dlk) (dlk)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 19, 2014

Filing 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART (17 in 1:12-cv-01513-LPS-CJB) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (The Amended Complaint) filed by Rockstar Games Inc., and (18 in 1:12-cv-01517-LPS-CJB) MOTION t o Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (The Second Amended Complaint) filed by Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and (17 in 1:12-cv-01519-LPS-CJB) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (The Second Amended Complaint) filed by 2K Games Inc. P lease 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 bri efing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 4/3/2014. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/17/2014. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-01513-LPS-CJB, 1:12-cv-01517-LPS-CJB, 1:12-cv-01519-LPS-CJB(dlk) (dlk)

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: McRo Inc. v. 2K Games Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: McRo Inc.
Represented By:	Michael J. Farnan
Represented By:	Brian E. Farnan
Represented By:	Vincent Filardo
Represented By:	Mark S. Raskin
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: 2K Games Inc.
Represented By:	Joseph C. Schoell
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?