U.S. Nutraceuticals LLC et al v. Cyanotech Corporation et al
U.S. Nutraceuticals LLC and Board of Trustees of The University of Illinois |
Cyanotech Corporation and Nutrex Hawaii, Inc. |
5:2012cv00366 |
June 29, 2012 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
Ocala Office |
Lake |
Wm. Terrell Hodges |
Philip R. Lammens |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 239 ORDER granting 235 Motion to File Under Seal. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal is GRANTED. Defendants are directed to provide the document to be sealed to the Clerk's Office, and the Clerk is directed to take all steps necessary to effectuate the filing of the document under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 11/4/2014. (SEJ) |
Filing 211 ORDER granting 210 Motion to Seal. Defendants are directed to provide thedocuments to be sealed, as identified in their Motion (Doc. 210), to the Clerk's Office, and the Clerk is directed to take all steps necessary to effectuate the filing of the documents under seal.Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 9/4/2014. (SEJ) |
Filing 204 ORDER. Defendants' motion for extension of rebuttal expert deadline (Doc. 191) is GRANTED in part, and the parties shall make every effort to complete any outstanding depositions of Plaintiffs' experts in advance of the amended rebuttal ex pert disclosure deadline. The case management deadlines are amended as follows: September 11, 2014 - rebuttal expert disclosure deadline; October 2, 2014 - Defendants' rebuttal regarding secondary considerations deadline; and October 22, 2014 - Expert discovery deadline. The remaining deadlines stated in the Case Management Order (Doc. 170) shall remain undisturbed. Defendants' motion (Doc. 198) for leave to file a reply in opposition to Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 8/11/2014. (JWM) |
Filing 190 ORDER granting 187 Motion to Seal. Plaintiffs are directed to provide the documents to be sealed, as identified in their Motion (Doc. 187), to the Clerk's Office, and the Clerk is directed to take all steps necessary to effectuate the filing of the documents under seal. The documents shall remain sealed during the pendency of this action, including on appeal, if applicable.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/28/2014. (JWM) |
Filing 185 ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Doc. 183) is DENIED, however, within ten (10) days of this Order, Plaintiffs may file a Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority, limited to four (4) pages in length, and limited in scope to the arguments addressed by Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/10/2014. (JWM) |
Filing 168 ORDER. (1) Defendants' Motions to Compel (Doc. 131 and 132) are DENIED;(2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, Schedule a Deposition, and Extend Discovery Period (Doc. 152) is GRANTED to the extent that Defendants' objections to Request No . 66 are OVERRULED, and Defendants shall produce documentation of the amount of compensation paid to Nutrex consultants as discussed in this Order; (3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Discovery (Doc. 152) is GRANTED, and all current case management deadlines are extended as follows: Discovery deadline: June 19, 2014; Dispositive Motion deadline: December 10, 2014; Pretrial Conference: February 18, 2015; and, Trial set for the term commencing: March 2, 2015; (4)Plaintiffs' Motion to Compe l, Schedule a Deposition and Extend Discovery Period (Doc. 152) is otherwise DENIED; and (5)Defendants' Request for Oral Argument, or to File a Reply Brief (Doc. 166) is DENIED as moot. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 5/13/2014. (JWM) |
Filing 140 ORDER denying as moot 46 Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Count II of Defendants' Counterclaim; granting 49 Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Counts II and III of Defendants' Amended Counterclaims. Signed by Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges on 3/19/2014. (LRH) |
Filing 139 ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 136) is GRANTED, and the Court's Order (Doc. 135) entered March 14, 2014 is hereby amended as follows: Plaintiffs shall have until March 28, 2014 within which to file responses to Defen dants' motions to compel (Docs. 131 and 132). Additionally, on or before March 24, 2014, counsel for both parties shall confer either telephonically or in person, and specifically and meaningfully discuss each and every document request that is the subject of Defendants' motion to compel in an effort to resolve the issues that are the subject of Defendants' motion, and to narrow the issues that must be resolved by the Court. On or before March 25, 2014, the parties shall file a joint notice certifying that they have complied with both this Order and Local Rule 3.01(g), and stating which document requests remain in dispute between the parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 3/17/2014. (JWM) |
Filing 124 ORDER denying 100 Motion to Compel. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 2/24/2014. (JWM) |
Filing 94 ORDER DENYING without prejudice 51 motion to stay; ADOPTING Report and Recommendations re 76 Report and Recommendations; Defendants' Objections 81 are OVERRULED. Signed by Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges on 11/15/2013. Copies mailed/emailed. (MAM) |
Filing 89 ORDER denying 88 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 11/12/2013. (JWM) |
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 Florida Middle 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.