Twin Rivers Engineering Corporation v. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc.
Plaintiff: Twin Rivers Engineering Corporation
Defendant: Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc.
Case Number: 6:2012cv01794
Filed: November 27, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Office: Orlando Office
County: Brevard
Presiding Judge: Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Presiding Judge: Thomas B. Smith
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 185 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgement in favor of Defendant Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. as to Counts I and II of Plaintiff Twin Rivers Engineering Corporation's Second Amended Complaint 38 . The Court awards costs as to Defendant Fieldpiece. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Twin Rivers Engineering Corportation as to the Breach of Contract and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices cliams brought by Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Fieldpiece 51 . The Court awards costs as to Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant TRE. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 8/11/2014. (MMW)
June 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 151 ORDER denying 99 TRE's Pre-Trial Motion in Limine, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Fieldpiece's Counterclaims. TRE shall have TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of this Order to inspect the documents supporting Fieldpiece's alleged damages in a manner agreed to by the parties. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 6/18/2014. (BGS)
March 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 113 ORDER granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Fieldpiece's counterclaim for breach of contract to the extent it seeks to impose liability for actions occurring after the termination of the Business Agreement. The Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 3/18/2014. (JO)
September 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 83 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 9/17/2013. (SMW)
August 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER granting 68 Motion to Compel production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 8/14/2013. (Smith, Thomas)
July 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER denying 70 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 7/30/2013. (Smith, Thomas)
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 Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Twin Rivers Engineering Corporation v. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Twin Rivers Engineering Corporation
Represented By: Nicolette Corso Vilmos
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: Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc.
Represented By: Mark F. Warzecha
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.


Why Is My Information Online?