ViaTech Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.
Plaintiff: ViaTech Technologies, Inc.
Defendant: Adobe Inc.
Case Number: 1:2022cv00598
Filed: May 3, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Delaware
Presiding Judge: Richard G Andrews
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 1 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 24, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORAL ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss (D.I. #11 ) and Motion to Consolidate (D.I. #8 ) are DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to renew once the stay has been lifted. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/24/2022. (nms)
June 24, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 25 SO ORDERED Granting #24 Joint Stipulation to Stay Action. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/24/2022. (nms)
June 24, 2022 Filing 24 STIPULATION to Stay Action by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. (Mayo, Andrew)
June 24, 2022 Filing 23 Letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews from Andrew C. Mayo regarding request to extend deadlines in C.A. 20-358 and stay C.A. 22-598. (Mayo, Andrew)
June 22, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re #22 STIPULATION and Proposed Order (*Reset Briefing Schedule: re #11 MOTION to Dismiss. Answering Brief due 6/28/2022). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/22/2022. (nms)
June 21, 2022 Filing 22 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Plaintiff to file answering brief in opposition of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss to June 28, 2022 - filed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. (Mayo, Andrew)
June 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORAL ORDER: The letter request regarding redactions (D.I. #19 ) is GRANTED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/21/2022. (nms)
June 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 20 SO ORDERED Granting #10 Stipulation to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/21/2022. (nms)
June 17, 2022 Filing 19 Letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews, from Andrew C. Mayo, regarding redactions to Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: #1 Letter, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B )(Mayo, Andrew) Modified on 6/17/2022 (nms).
June 17, 2022 Filing 18 REDACTED VERSION of #13 Declaration by Adobe Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-12)(Farnan, Kelly)
June 17, 2022 Filing 17 STIPULATION and Proposed Order - filed by ViaTech Technologies Inc., ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. (Mayo, Andrew) Modified on 6/17/2022 (nms).
June 17, 2022 Filing 16 REDACTED VERSION of #12 Opening Brief in Support by Adobe Inc.. (Farnan, Kelly)
June 17, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re (D.I. 17 in 22-cv-598-RGA; D.I. 135 in 20-cv-358-RGA-MPT) STIPULATION and Proposed Order extending time to file reply brief to June 24, 2022. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/17/2022. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00358-RGA-MPT, 1:22-cv-00598-RGA(nms)
June 10, 2022 Filing 15 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re #8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Adobe Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 6/17/2022. (Farnan, Kelly)
June 10, 2022 Pro Hac Vice Attorney Matthew J. Moffa for Adobe 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. (mpb)
June 8, 2022 Filing 14 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Matthew Moffa - filed by Adobe Inc.. (Farnan, Kelly)
June 8, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re #14 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Matthew Moffa, filed by Adobe Inc.. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/8/2022. (nms)
June 7, 2022 Filing 13 [SEALED] DECLARATION Matthew J. Moffa re #12 Opening Brief in Support, by Adobe Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits 1-13)(Farnan, Kelly) Modified on 6/7/2022 (nms).
June 7, 2022 Filing 12 [SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re #11 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Adobe Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 6/21/2022. (Farnan, Kelly) Modified on 6/7/2022 (nms).
June 7, 2022 Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss - filed by Adobe Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Farnan, Kelly) Modified on 6/7/2022 (nms).
June 7, 2022 Filing 10 STIPULATION To File Under Seal by Adobe Inc.. (Farnan, Kelly)
May 27, 2022 Filing 9 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 6/10/2022. (Mayo, Andrew)
May 27, 2022 Filing 8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases - filed by ViaTech Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mayo, Andrew)
May 20, 2022 Filing 7 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to move, answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to June 7, 2022 - filed by Adobe Inc.. (Farnan, Kelly)
May 20, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re #7 STIPULATION to Extend Time (*Reset Answer Deadlines: Adobe Inc. answer due 6/7/2022). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/20/2022. (nms)
May 13, 2022 Pro Hac Vice Attorney Michael N. Zachary for ViaTech Technologies, 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. (mpb)
May 13, 2022 Pro Hac Vice Attorney Richard C. Lin for ViaTech Technologies, 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. (mpb)
May 12, 2022 Filing 6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Denise M. De Mory, Michael N. Zachary, and Richard C. Lin - filed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. (Mayo, Andrew)
May 12, 2022 Opinion or Order SO ORDERED, re #6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Denise M. De Mory, Michael N. Zachary, and Richard C. Lin, filed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/12/2022. (nms)
May 11, 2022 Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Please include the initials of the Judge (RGA) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms)
May 4, 2022 Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. Adobe Inc. served on 5/3/2022, answer due 5/24/2022. (Mayo, Andrew)
May 3, 2022 Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. (mal)
May 3, 2022 Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,920,567. (mal)
May 3, 2022 Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mal)
May 3, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - filed with Jury Demand against Adobe Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3865468.) - filed by ViaTech Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(mal)
May 3, 2022 No Summons Issued. (mal)

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: ViaTech Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ViaTech Technologies, Inc.
Represented By: John G. Day
Represented By: Andrew Colin Mayo
Represented By: Michael N. Zachary
Represented By: Richard C. Lin
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: Adobe Inc.
Represented By: Kelly E. Farnan
Represented By: Matthew J. Moffa
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?