Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
| Elm 3DS Innovations LLC |
| Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America LLC and Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC |
| 1:2014cv01430 |
| November 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Wilmington Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Christopher J. Burke |
| Leonard P. Stark |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
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
442
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Defendants' request to compel the production of certain documents listed on Plaintiff's privilege log (D.I. 433 ) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. (see Memorandum Order for details). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 10/15/2021. (ceg)
|
|
Filing
412
MEMORANDUM ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Samsung's Objections 389 areOVERRULED, the Discovery Order 393 is ADOPTED, and Elm's motion to compel remains GRANTED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/24/21. (ntl)
|
|
Filing
372
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Having now reviewed in camera the documents submitted by Elm, and having considered all of the parties' filings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Samsung's request to compel discovery is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 11/19/2020. (ceg)
|
|
Filing
299
MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting re (262 in 1:14-cv-01432-LPS, 271 in 1:14-cv-01430-LPS, 248 in 1:14-cv-01431-LPS) MOTION for Clarification re (259 in 1:14-cv-01432-LPS, 243 in 1:14-cv-01431-LPS, 267 in 1:14-cv-01430-LPS) Order, (258 in 1:14-cv-01432-L PS, 242 in 1:14-cv-01431-LPS, 266 in 1:14-cv-01430-LPS) Memorandum Opinion filed by Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Micron Semiconductor Products Inc., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Mic ron Technology Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, SK hynix America Inc., SK hynix Memory Solutions Inc., SK hynix Inc., Micron Consumer Products Group Inc., Samsung Electronics America Inc. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 6/10/20. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-01430-LPS, 1:14-cv-01431-LPS, 1:14-cv-01432-LPS (ntl)
|
|
Filing
266
MEMORANDUM OPINION re claim construction. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 4/13/20. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-01430-LPS, 1:14-cv-01431-LPS, 1:14-cv-01432-LPS (ntl)
|
|
Filing
170
MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING D.I. (163 in 1:14-cv-01432-LPS, 160 in 1:14-cv-01430-LPS, 136 in 1:14-cv-01431-LPS) MOTION to Lift Stay filed by Elm 3DS Innovations LLC. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/26/2018. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-01430-LPS, 1:14-cv-01431-LPS, 1:14-cv-01432-LPS(mlc)
|
|
Filing
97
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED; 25 MOTION to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/31/16. (ntl)
|
|
Filing
40
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending denial of D.I. 25 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Induced Infringement Claims Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Aust in Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics America Inc.. 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 10/16/2015. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/29/2015. (dlk)
|
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 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.
