Nitetek Licensing LLC v. GoDaddy.com, LLC
| Nitetek Licensing LLC |
| GoDaddy.com, LLC doing business as Poynt |
| 1:2022cv01005 |
| July 30, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Maryellen Noreika |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to Answer the Complaint to 10/07/2022 - filed by Nitetek Licensing LLC. (Chong, Jimmy) |
SO ORDERED re #9 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to respond and/or answer the Complaint to 10/07/2022 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: GoDaddy.com, LLC answer due 10/7/2022). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 9/22/2022. (dlw)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Grant McArthur - filed by Nitetek Licensing LLC. (Chong, Jimmy) |
|
SO ORDERED re #8 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Grant McArthur filed by Nitetek Licensing LLC. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 8/30/2022. (dlw)
|
| Filing 7 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer - filed by GoDaddy.com, LLC. (Auerbach, Brian) |
|
SO ORDERED re #7 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to 9/22/2022 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: GoDaddy.com, LLC answer due 9/22/2022). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 8/22/2022. (dlw)
|
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Nitetek Licensing LLC. GoDaddy.com, LLC served on 8/2/2022, answer due 8/23/2022. (Chong, Jimmy) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01005-MN, 1:22-cv-01006-MN, 1:22-cv-01015-MN (rjb) |
| Filing 5 Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (mpb) |
| Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Nitetek Licensing LLC. (mpb) |
| Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,661,783. (mpb) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mpb) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against GoDaddy.com, LLC ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3926281.) - filed by Nitetek Licensing LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(mpb) |
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: Nitetek Licensing LLC v. GoDaddy.com, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Nitetek Licensing LLC | |
| Represented By: | Jimmy C. Chong |
| 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: GoDaddy.com, LLC doing business as Poynt | |
| Represented By: | Brian S.S. Auerbach |
| 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.
