Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.
| Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. |
| Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. |
| 1:2021cv00363 |
| March 11, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Richard G Andrews |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 30, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by John David Simmons on behalf of Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Simmons, John) |
| Filing 9 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint - filed by Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.. (Butler, Dennis) Modified on 4/30/2021 (nms). |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis James Butler on behalf of Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Butler, Dennis) |
SO ORDERED, re #9 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. answer due 6/4/2021). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/30/2021. (nms)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint - filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. (deBruin, David) Modified on 3/26/2021 (nms). |
|
SO ORDERED, re #7 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. answer due 5/5/2021). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/26/2021. (nms)
|
| Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Please include the initials of the Judge (RGA) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. served on 3/12/2021, answer due 4/5/2021. (deBruin, David) |
| Filing 5 Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (myr) |
| Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (myr) |
| Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,165,867. (myr) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (myr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3569042.) - filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(myr) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., 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: | David W. deBruin |
| 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: Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. | |
| Represented By: | John David Simmons |
| Represented By: | Dennis James Butler |
| 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.
