Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. v. Watson Guide IP LLC
Plaintiff: Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc.
Defendant: Watson Guide IP LLC
Case Number: 1:2022cv00098
Filed: January 25, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Delaware
Presiding Judge: Colm F Connolly
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 1 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 2, 2022 Filing 15 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 9,554,879. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice)(kmd)
March 1, 2022 CASE CLOSED per D.I. #14 . (kmd)
March 1, 2022 Filing 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. as to Watson Guide IP LLC (Chong, Jimmy)
February 22, 2022 Pro Hac Vice Attorneys Joseph A. Sebolt, Andrew S. Curfman for Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. 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. (twk)
February 18, 2022 Filing 13 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Joseph A. Sebolt - filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc.. (Chong, Jimmy)
February 18, 2022 Filing 12 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Andrew S. Curfman - filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc.. (Chong, Jimmy)
February 18, 2022 Pro Hac Vice Attorney Bruce G. Chapman for Watson Guide IP 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. (srs)
February 18, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re MOTIONS for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of #12 Attorney Andrew S. Curfman and #13 Attorney Joseph A. Sebolt, filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/18/2022. (kmd)
February 17, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re #11 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Bruce G. Chapman, filed by Watson Guide IP LLC. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/17/2022. (kmd)
February 16, 2022 Filing 11 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Bruce G. Chapman - filed by Watson Guide IP LLC. (Attachments: #1 Pro Hac Vice Certification)(Silverstein, Alan)
February 16, 2022 Filing 10 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Watson Guide IP LLC. (Silverstein, Alan)
February 16, 2022 Filing 9 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #8 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Watson Guide IP LLC.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 3/2/2022. (Silverstein, Alan)
February 16, 2022 Filing 8 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) - filed by Watson Guide IP LLC. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Silverstein, Alan)
February 2, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re #6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Howard L. Wernow filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/2/2022. (nmf)
February 2, 2022 Pro Hac Vice Attorney Howard L. Wernow for Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. 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. (mal)
February 2, 2022 Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb)
February 1, 2022 Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc.. Watson Guide IP LLC served on 1/26/2022, answer due 2/16/2022. (Chong, Jimmy)
January 26, 2022 Filing 6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Howard L. Wernow - filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc.. (Chong, Jimmy)
January 25, 2022 Filing 5 Summons Issued with Magistrate Consent Notice attached as to Watson Guide IP LLC on 1/25/2022. (srs)
January 25, 2022 Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. (srs)
January 25, 2022 Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 9,554,879. (srs)
January 25, 2022 Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (srs)
January 25, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT filed with Jury Demand against Watson Guide IP LLC - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3788362.) - filed by Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(srs)

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: Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. v. Watson Guide IP LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc.
Represented By: Jimmy C. Chong
Represented By: Andrew S. Curfman
Represented By: Howard L. Wernow
Represented By: Joseph A. Sebolt
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: Watson Guide IP LLC
Represented By: Alan Richard Silverstein
Represented By: Bruce G. Chapman
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?