Inpria Corporation v. Lam Research Corp.
| Inpria Corporation |
| Lam Research Corp. |
| 1:2022cv01359 |
| October 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 1 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint to December 22, 2022 - filed by Lam Research Corp.. (Dudash, Amy) |
SO ORDERED, re #8 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint to December 22, 2022, filed by Lam Research Corp. Reset Answer Deadlines: Lam Research Corp. answer due 12/22/2022. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 11/3/2022. (kmd)
|
| Pro Hac Vice Attorney Michael R. Headley for Inpria 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. (mpb) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms) |
|
SO ORDERED, re #6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael R. Headley filed by Inpria Corporation. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 10/19/2022. (nmf)
|
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Inpria Corporation.Lam Research Corp. served on 10/17/2022, answer due 11/7/2022. (Mabey, Warren) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael R. Headley - filed by Inpria Corporation. (Mabey, Warren) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Lam Research Corp. on 10/14/2022. (mpb) |
| Filing 4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: identifying Corporate Parent JSR Corporation for Inpria Corporation filed by Inpria Corporation. (mpb) |
| Filing 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) U.S. 10,732,505 ;U.S. 9,823,564 ;U.S. 9,310,684. (mpb) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mpb) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Lam Research Corp. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3982763.) - filed by Inpria Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 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: Inpria Corporation v. Lam Research Corp. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Inpria Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Warren K. Mabey, Jr. |
| Represented By: | Michael R. Headley |
| 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: Lam Research Corp. | |
| Represented By: | Amy Michele Dudash |
| 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.
