Signify North America Corporation et al v. Robe Lighting Inc et al
| Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. |
| Robe Lighting Inc and Robe Lighting S.R.O. |
| 0:2020cv62302 |
| November 12, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| K Michael Moore |
| Lurana S Snow |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. § 0145 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 4, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 35
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE #25 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Substituted Service. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 1/4/2021. See attached document for full details. (hwr)
|
| Filing 34 RESPONSE in Opposition re #30 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss #24 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Demand for Injunctive Relief filed by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Replies due by 1/11/2021. (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 33 RESPONSE in Support re #25 MOTION For Substituted Service on Defendant Robe Lighting S.R.O. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) (EXPEDITED MOTION) filed by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 32 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint with Jury Demand For The Amended Complaint by Robe Lighting Inc. (Brafman, David) |
| Filing 31 RESPONSE in Opposition re #25 MOTION For Substituted Service on Defendant Robe Lighting S.R.O. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) (EXPEDITED MOTION) filed by Robe Lighting Inc. Replies due by 12/28/2020. (Brafman, David) |
| Filing 30 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss #24 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Demand for Injunctive Relief by Robe Lighting Inc. Responses due by 1/4/2021 (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Demand for Injunctive Relief)(Brafman, David) |
| Filing 29 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Mark David Passler on behalf of Robe Lighting Inc. Attorney Mark David Passler added to party Robe Lighting Inc(pty:dft). (Passler, Mark) |
|
Filing 28
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' filing of an Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement. #24 . The Amended Complaint moots Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. #21 . Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Amended Complaint #24 , the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss #24 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 12/7/2020. (hwr)
|
|
Filing 27
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. #19 . Therein, Plaintiffs state that they served Defendants' counsel with their Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions based on reasonable belief of receiving "confirmation by Robe's US counsel that he was accepting service of the infringement contentions on behalf of both Robe Lighting Inc. and Robe Lighting s.r.o." Id. at 3. Plaintiffs state that Defendants' counsel confirmed receipt of the infringement contentions, but later in the day clarified their confirmation, stating that because "Robe Lighting s.r.o. has not yet been served with the complaint, is a foreign company, and has not otherwise appeared in the litigation, we are not currently accepting service of anything (including the infringement contentions) on behalf of Robe Lighting s.r.o." Id. at 4. On December 4, 2020, counsel for Defendant Robe Lighting Inc. filed its Memorandum in Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Compliance and Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions ("Response"). #26 . In its Response, Defendant Robe Lighting Inc. disputes the effectiveness of service of the asserted claims and infringement contentions as to Robe Lighting s.r.o., stating "Defendant Robe Lighting s.r.o. is not yet subject to service of Plaintiffs' Contentions (or discovery requests or the like) because it is not an active party or subject to the Court's jurisdiction until it has been served with the Complaint and Summons." Id. at 3. Thus, only one of the two named Defendants has been effectively served with Plaintiffs' asserted claims and infringement contentions. Plaintiffs request "an extension to serve its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on Robe Lighting s.r.o. until such time that the Complaint and Summons are deemed served on Robe Lighting s.r.o." #19 . "District courts have 'unquestionable' authority to control their own dockets." Smith v. Psychiatric Sol., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). "This authority includes 'broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them.'" Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argue that since "Defendants' invalidity contentions are due within 45 days of service of the infringement contentions in accordance with the Patent Pretrial Order [ #11 ], it would be highly inefficient and a waste of the Court's and the parties' resources to proceed down two separate schedules for invalidity contentions and claim construction, one schedule triggered off of [Plaintiffs'] November 25, 2020 service of the infringement contentions on Robe Lighting Inc., and a second schedule triggered off of service on Robe Lighting s.r.o. under the Hague Convention." #19 at 5. Plaintiffs further argue that "proceeding down two separate schedules for invalidity contentions and claim construction would give [Defendants] two bites at the apple, which would be manifestly unfair given the corporate relationship between Robe Lighting Inc. and Robe Lighting s.r.o." Id. Counsel for Defendant Robe Lighting Inc. does not address the requested extension in its Response. See generally #26 . Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion #19 , pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall serve their Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on Robe Lighting s.r.o. within seven (7) days of serving the Complaint and Summons on Robe Lighting s.r.o. Defendant Robe Lighting Inc.'s and Defendant Robe Lighting s.r.o.'s invalidity contentions shall be due forty-five (45) days thereafter. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 12/7/2020. (hwr)
|
| Filing 26 RESPONSE to #18 Notice of Compliance, #19 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions by Robe Lighting Inc. (Brafman, David) |
| Filing 25 MOTION For Substituted Service on Defendant Robe Lighting S.R.O. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) (EXPEDITED MOTION) by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 24 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against All Plaintiffs, filed by Signify North America Corporation, Signify Holding B.V.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 5)(Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 23 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Robe Lighting Inc identifying Corporate Parent Robe Lighting s.r.o. for Robe Lighting Inc (Brafman, David) |
| Filing 22 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Martha Anne Leibell on behalf of Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Attorney Martha Anne Leibell added to party Signify Holding B.V.(pty:pla), Attorney Martha Anne Leibell added to party Signify North America Corporation(pty:pla). (Leibell, Martha) |
| Filing 21 MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint, by Robe Lighting Inc. Attorney David S Brafman added to party Robe Lighting Inc(pty:dft). Responses due by 12/16/2020 (Brafman, David) |
|
Filing 20
GENERAL ORDER ON DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS AND PROCEDURES signed by Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow on 11/29/2020. (jz)
|
| Filing 19 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Responses due by 12/11/2020 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit E-mail communication, #2 Exhibit E-mail communication)(Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Compliance Regarding Service of Claims and Contentions by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation re #11 Pretrial Order (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 17 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Signify North America Corporation, Signify Holding B.V.. Robe Lighting Inc served on 11/12/2020, answer due 12/3/2020. (Reiss, Andrew) |
|
Filing 16
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Jeremy P. Oczek to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. #10 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #10 is GRANTED. Jeremy P. Oczek may appear pro hac vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to jpoczek@bsk.com. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/13/2020. (hwr)
|
|
Filing 15
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for George R. McGuire to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. #9 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #9 is GRANTED. George R. McGuire may appear pro hac vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to gmcguire@bsk.com. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/13/2020. (hwr)
|
|
Filing 14
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Jonathan L. Gray to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. #8 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #8 is GRANTED. Jonathan L. Gray may appear pro hac vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to jlgray@bsk.com. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/13/2020. (hwr)
|
|
Filing 13
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Jessica L. Copeland to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. #7 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #7 is GRANTED. Jessica L. Copeland may appear pro hac vice in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to jcopeland@bsk.com. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/13/2020. (hwr)
|
|
Filing 12
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LURANA S. SNOW. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow's discovery procedures, which the parties shall be advised of by the entry of an Order. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/13/2020. (hwr)
|
|
Filing 11
PRETRIAL ORDER Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/13/2020. See attached document for full details. (hwr)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Jeremy P. Oczek. Filing Fee $ 200.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-13861162 by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Responses due by 11/30/2020 (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for George R. McGuire. Filing Fee $ 200.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-13861144 by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Responses due by 11/30/2020 (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Jonathan L. Gray. Filing Fee $ 200.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-13861030 by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Responses due by 11/30/2020 (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Jessica L. Copeland. Filing Fee $ 200.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-13860984 by Signify Holding B.V., Signify North America Corporation. Responses due by 11/30/2020 (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Signify North America Corporation identifying Corporate Parent Signify Holding B.V. for Signify North America Corporation (Reiss, Andrew) |
| Filing 5 Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Jeremy P. Oczek, Jessica L. Copeland, George R. McGuire, Jonathan L. Gray, mailing date 11/12/2020, (cco) |
| Filing 4 FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK (Attachments: #1 Supplement Complaint and Exhibits) (jao) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Robe Lighting Inc, Robe Lighting S.R.O. (jao) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (jao) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 400.00. Pay.gov Agency Tracking ID FLSDC-13854740, payment transferred from : 20cv24640, filed by Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit, #2 Exhibit Exhibit, #3 Exhibit Exhibit, #4 Exhibit Exhibit, #5 Exhibit Exhibit, #6 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Summon(s) Summons, #8 Summon(s) Summons)(Reiss, Andrew) |
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 Southern 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.
