NEC Corporation v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
| NEC Corporation |
| Peloton Interactive, Inc. |
| 1:2022cv00987 |
| July 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jennifer C. Tempesta, Nick Palmieri, Michael E. Knierim, Sarah J. Guske, Lance Goodman, Robert L. Maier for NEC Corporation, 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. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00986-CFC, 1:22-cv-00987-CFC, 1:22-cv-00988-CFC(smg)
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael E. Knierim and Attorney Nick Palmieri - filed by NEC Corporation. (Dorsney, Kenneth)
|
|
SO ORDERED, re (8 in 1:22-cv-00988-CFC, 9 in 1:22-cv-00986-CFC, 9 in 1:22-cv-00987-CFC) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael E. Knierim and Attorney Nick Palmieri, filed by NEC Corporation. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 9/1/2022. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00987-CFC, 1:22-cv-00986-CFC, 1:22-cv-00988-CFC (kmd)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Lance J. Goodman, Attorney Sarah Guske, Attorney Robert Maier, and Attorney Jennifer C. Tempesta - filed by NEC Corporation. (Dorsney, Kenneth)
|
|
SO ORDERED, re (7 in 1:22-cv-00988-CFC, 8 in 1:22-cv-00986-CFC, 8 in 1:22-cv-00987-CFC) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Lance J. Goodman, Attorney Sarah Guske, Attorney Robert Maier, and Attorney Jennifer C. Tempesta, filed by NEC Corporation Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 8/30/2022. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00987-CFC, 1:22-cv-00986-CFC, 1:22-cv-00988-CFC(kmd)
|
|
Filing 7
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint (D.I. 1) to October 3, 2022 - filed by Peloton Interactive, Inc.. (Jacobs, Karen)
|
|
SO ORDERED, re #7 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint (D.I. 1) to October 3, 2022 filed by Peloton Interactive, Inc., Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Peloton Interactive, Inc. answer due 10/3/2022. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 8/18/2022. (nmf)
|
|
Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00986-CFC, 1:22-cv-00987-CFC, 1:22-cv-00988-CFC (rjb)
|
|
Filing 6
SUMMONS Returned Executed by NEC Corporation. Peloton Interactive, Inc. served on 7/28/2022, answer due 8/18/2022. (Dorsney, Kenneth)
|
|
Filing 5
Summons Issued as to Peloton Interactive, Inc. on 7/28/2022. (apk)
|
|
Filing 4
Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by NEC Corporation. (apk)
|
|
Filing 3
Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,752,101 ;8,909,809 ;9,769,427. (apk)
|
|
Filing 2
Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Peloton Interactive, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3924406.) - filed by NEC Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-F, #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
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.
