Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Infinova Corporation
| Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. |
| Infinova Corporation |
| 1:2021cv00648 |
| May 5, 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 June 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,972,790; 8,537,242; 8,165,867; 6,924,832. (Attachments: #1 Order)(nms) |
Filing 10
SO ORDERED Granting #9 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/22/2021. (nms) (nms).
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. as to Infinova Corporation (deBruin, David) |
| Filing 8 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to ANSWER complaint to July 16, 2021 - filed by Infinova Corporation. (Endersby, Austen) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Austen C. Endersby on behalf of All Defendants (Endersby, Austen) |
|
SO ORDERED, re #8 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Extend Time (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Infinova Corporation answer due 7/16/2021). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/26/2021. (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.. Infinova Corporation served on 5/11/2021, answer due 6/1/2021. (deBruin, David) |
| Filing 5 Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (sam) |
| Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (sam) |
| Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,972,790 ;8,537,242 ;8,165,867 ;6,924,832. (sam) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (sam) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement- filed with Jury Demand against Infinova Corporation - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3608307.) - filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Civil Cover Sheet)(sam) |
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. Infinova Corporation | |
|---|---|
| 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: Infinova Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Austen C. Endersby |
| 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.
