Lummus Technology LLC v. Lummus Corporation
| Lummus Technology LLC |
| Lummus Corporation doing business as Lummus Ag Technology |
| 1:2023cv00117 |
| January 31, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 DEFICIENCY NOTICE by the Court issued to Lummus Technology LLC re #12 Answering Brief in Opposition. Pursuant to the Court's Standing Order Regarding Briefing in All Cases, dated November 10, 2022, "[t]he covers of briefs filed in connection with all motions except for motions in limine included in a pretrial order shall be as follows: i. Opening Brief Blue; ii. Answering Brief Red; iii. Reply Brief Gray." Courtesy copies of D.I. #12 are not in compliance with the Court's standing order. Please resubmit courtesy copies of your brief with the corrected covers. (kmd) |
| Filing 13 DECLARATION re #12 Answering Brief in Opposition of Vivan Cheng by Lummus Technology LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Mabey, Warren) |
| Filing 12 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Lummus Technology LLC.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 4/4/2023. (Mabey, Warren) |
| Pro Hac Vice Attorney Michael T. Leigh for Lummus 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) |
| Filing 11 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #10 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Lummus Corporation.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 3/28/2023. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Certificate of Service)(Busenkell, Michael) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - filed by Lummus Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Certificate of Service)(Busenkell, Michael) |
| Pro Hac Vice Attorney Casey L. Hinkle for Lummus 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) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Edmond R. Bannon, Catherine H. Stockell, Kristen McCallion, and Vivian Cheng - filed by Lummus Technology LLC. (Mabey, Warren) |
SO ORDERED, re #9 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Edmond R. Bannon, Catherine H. Stockell, Kristen McCallion, and Vivian Cheng, filed by Lummus Technology LLC. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 3/9/2023. (kmd)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Clark Johnson, Esq. - filed by Lummus Corporation. (Busenkell, Michael) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Casey L. Hinkle, Esq. - filed by Lummus Corporation. (Busenkell, Michael) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael T. Leigh, Esq. - filed by Lummus Corporation. (Busenkell, Michael) |
|
SO ORDERED, re MOTIONS for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorneys #6 Michael T. Leigh, Esq., #7 Casey L. Hinkle, Esq., #8 Clark Johnson, Esq., filed by Lummus Corporation. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 3/3/2023. (kmd)
|
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lummus Technology LLC.Lummus Corporation served on 2/21/2023, answer due 3/14/2023. (Mabey, Warren) |
| Filing 4 STANDING ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING IN ALL CASES (nmf) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) |
| Filing 3 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: identifying Corporate Parents Lummus Technology Holdings V LLC, Lummus Technology Holdings III LLC, Lummus Technology Holdings II LLC, and Lummus Technology Holdings I LLC for Lummus Technology LLC filed by Lummus Technology LLC. (mpb) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mpb) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Lummus Corporation ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-4056588.) - filed by Lummus Technology LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(mpb) |
| No Summons Issued. (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: Lummus Technology LLC v. Lummus Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Lummus Technology LLC | |
| Represented By: | Warren K. Mabey, Jr. |
| 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: Lummus Corporation doing business as Lummus Ag Technology | |
| Represented By: | Michael T. Leigh |
| Represented By: | Michael Busenkell |
| Represented By: | Casey L. Hinkle |
| 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.
