DatRec, LLC v. Eyefinity, Inc.
| DatRec, LLC |
| Eyefinity, Inc. |
| 1:2021cv00397 |
| March 18, 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 15, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
SO ORDERED, re #9 STIPULATION for Extension of Time (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Eyefinity, Inc. answer due 5/27/2021). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/15/2021. (nms)
|
| Filing 9 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to move, answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to May 27, 2021 - filed by DatRec, LLC. (Stamoulis, Stamatios) |
|
Filing 8
ORAL ORDER: An answer was due to be filed on 4/12/2021 (see D.I. #6 ), and to date none has been filed. Now the Plaintiff shall file a status letter within 3 days from the entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/14/2021. (nms)
|
| Pro Hac Vice Attorney William P. Ramey, III for DatRec, LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (myr) |
|
SO ORDERED, re #7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney William P. Ramey, III, filed by DatRec, LLC. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/8/2021. (nms)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney William P. Ramey, III - filed by DatRec, LLC. (Stamoulis, Stamatios) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Please include the initials of the Judge (RGA) after the case number on all documents filed. Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-00397-RGA, 1:21-cv-00413-RGA (rjb) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DatRec, LLC. Eyefinity, Inc. served on 3/22/2021, answer due 4/12/2021. (Stamoulis, Stamatios) |
| Filing 5 Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (apk) |
| Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by DatRec, LLC. (apk) |
| Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 8,381,309 B2. (apk) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement with Jury Demand against Eyefinity, Inc. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3574954) - filed by DatRec, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) |
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: DatRec, LLC v. Eyefinity, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: DatRec, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Stamatios Stamoulis |
| Represented By: | Richard Charles Weinblatt |
| Represented By: | William P. Ramey, III |
| 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: Eyefinity, Inc. | |
| 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.
