Daniel Defense, Inc. v. Battle Arms Development, Inc.
Plaintiff: Daniel Defense, Inc.
Defendant: Battle Arms Development, Inc.
Case Number: 4:2016cv00291
Filed: November 4, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office: Savannah Office
County: Chatham
Presiding Judge: J. Randal Hall
Presiding Judge: G. R. Smith
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 145
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 4 GENERAL ORDER: Report of Rule 26(f) planning meeting. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 11/4/2016. (loh)
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 Georgia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Daniel Defense, Inc. v. Battle Arms Development, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Defense, Inc.
Represented By: Justin Charles Ward
Represented By: Robert M. Ward
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: Battle Arms Development, Inc.
Represented By: Jason Carl Pedigo
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?